COVID-19 Law and Mandate Court Cases

Many of the COVID-19 public health laws and mandates around the world violate widely understood basic human rights and freedoms outlined in the human rights and freedoms laws of many countries. In addition, the worldwide mass vaccination campaign using experimental vaccines, with less than fully informed consent to the public may violate the ¹⁾ (a ten-point statement delimiting permissible medical experimentation on human subjects). Many people (Including several lawyers) believe all the COVID-19 related laws and mandates implemented since early 2020 can be considered ²⁾ and those responsible for them should be held legally responsible. The purpose of this page is to list and summarize (from around the world) final court rulings, and important ongoing legal proceedings challenging any of the COVID-19 public health laws and mandates, as well as any other related aspect of this pandemic.

Belgium’s Wallonia region: ‘Notre bon droit’ (Our good right) VS Wallonia Regional Government: December 2, 2021.

The court has ruled ³⁾ that the use of a COVID vaccine certificate is illegal. As a result, the court has ordered the local government to pay a daily fine of €5,000 ($5,658 USD) until they withdraw the measure. The region of Wallonia did not attend the hearing to defend their position and their have refused to withdraw the vaccine certificate passport despite the court's ruling.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS GALVESTON DIVISION: No. 3:21-cv-356: FEDS FOR MEDICAL FREEDOM, ET AL. vs. JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., ET AL.: January 21, 2022.

This ruling halted the COVID-19 vaccination mandate for all federal employees and employee of federal government contractors ⁴⁾.

United States Court of Appeals for The Fifth Circuit: Attorneys General for Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas and Utah VS Occupational Safety and Health Administration, United States Department of Labor; United States: November 12, 2021

This ruling addresses the OSHA vaccination mandate for employers with 100 or more employees, commissioned by the federal government.

Comments from the petition ruling⁵⁾

• “For these reasons, the petitioners’ motion for a stay pending review is GRANTED. Enforcement of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s “COVID-19 Vaccination and Testing; Emergency Temporary Standard” 22 remains STAYED pending adequate judicial review of the petitioners’ underlying motions for a permanent injunction.”

• “This case concerns OSHA’s most recent ETS—the Agency’s November 5, 2021 Emergency Temporary Standard (the “Mandate”) requiring employees of covered employers to undergo COVID-19 vaccination or take weekly COVID-19 tests and wear a mask.3 An array of petitioners seeks a stay barring OSHA from enforcing the Mandate during the pendency of judicial review. On November 6, 2021, we agreed to stay the Mandate pending briefing and expedited judicial review. Having conducted that expedited review, we reaffirm our initial stay.”

• “The underinclusive nature of the Mandate implies that the Mandate’s true purpose is not to enhance workplace safety, but instead to ramp up vaccine uptake by any means necessary”

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION: STATE OF MISSOURI, et al. VS JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., in his official capacity as the President of the United States of America, et al.: November 29, 2021

This case is about whether Missouri and 9 other state department's of health have authority to impose COVID-19 vaccine mandates on Medicare and Medicaid staff.

Comments from the Injunction Ruling ⁶⁾

• “The Complaint seeks preliminary and permanent injunctive and declaratory relief. On November 12, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, requesting that this Court issue a preliminary injunction enjoining Defendants from imposing the mandate. Having fully reviewed the administrative record and submitted material, the Court finds that a preliminary injunction is warranted here.”

• “Plaintiffs are likely to succeed in their argument that Congress has not provided CMS the authority to enact the regulation at issue here. ”[A]n agency literally has no power to act, let alone pre-empt the validly enacted legislation of a sovereign State, unless and until Congress confers power upon it.“ La. Pub. Serv. Comm’n v. FCC, 476 U.S. 355, 357 (1986). While the Court agrees Congress has authorized the Secretary of Health and Human Services (the “Secretary”) general authority to enact regulations for the “administration” of Medicare and Medicaid and the “health and safety” of recipients, the nature and breadth of the CMS mandate requires clear authorization from Congress—and Congressed has provided none.”

• “Even if CMS has the authority to implement the vaccine mandate—which the Court finds is unlikely, as discussed above—the mandate is likely an unlawful promulgation of regulations. Both the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) and the Social Security Act ordinarily require notice and a comment period before a rule like this one takes effect”…“Here, Plaintiffs are likely to succeed in their argument that CMS unlawfully bypassed the APA’s notice and comment requirements.”

• “Finally, Plaintiffs are likely to succeed in establishing that the CMS vaccine mandate is arbitrary or capricious. Under the APA, a court must “hold unlawful and set aside agency action” that is “arbitrary” or “capricious.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). The APA’s arbitrary-and-capricious standard requires that agency action be reasonable and reasonably explained.”

• “CMS lacks evidence showing that vaccination status has a direct impact on spreading COVID in the mandate’s covered healthcare facilities. CMS acknowledges its lack of “comprehensive data” on this matter but attempts to “extrapolate” the abundant data that it does have on Long Term Care Facilities (“LTCs”), generally referred to as nursing homes, to the other dozen-plus Medicare and Medicaid facilities covered by the mandate. 86 Fed. Reg. at 61,585. However, CMS’s path of analysis appears misguided and the inferences it produced are questionable.”

• “In general, the overwhelming lack of evidence likely shows CMS had insufficient evidence to mandate vaccination on the wide range of facilities that it did. Looking even beyond the evidence deficiencies relating to the specific facilities covered, the lack of data regarding vaccination status and transmissibility—in general—is concerning.”

• “No one questions that protecting patients and healthcare workers from contracting COVID is a laudable objective. But the Court cannot, in good faith, allow CMS to enact an unprecedented mandate that lacks a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.”

• “Defendants shall immediately cease all implementation or enforcement of the Interim Final Rule with Comment Period as to any Medicare- and Medicaid-certified providers and suppliers within the States of Alaska, Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming.”

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA MONROE DIVISION: STATE OF LOUISIANA ET AL VERSUS XAVIER BECERRA ET AL: November 30, 2021

The issue involves whether a preliminary injunction against the COVID-19 Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services employee vaccine mandate (“CMS Mandate”) implemented by the Government Defendants on November 5, 2021 can be granted. This mandate covers 10.3 million healthcare workers nation-wide.

Comments from the Ruling ⁷⁾

• “Finding that the Government Defendants do not have the authority to implement the CMS Mandate, this Court GRANTS Plaintiff States’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction [Doc. No. 2] and IMMEDIATELY ENJOINS and RESTRAINS the Government Defendants from implementing the CMS Mandate.”

• “If the separation of powers meant anything to the Constitutional framers, it meant that the three necessary ingredients to deprive a person of liberty or property – the power to make rules, to enforce them, and to judge their violations – could never fall into the same hands. Tiger Lily, LLC v. United States Housing and Urban Development, 5 F.4th 666 (6th Cir. 2021). (Thapar, J. Concurrence). If the Executive branch is allowed to usurp the power of the Legislative branch to make laws, two of the three powers conferred by the Constitution would be in the same hands.”…“If human nature and history teach anything, it is that civil liberties face grave risks when governments proclaim indefinite states of emergency. Does 1-3 v. Mills, _ S.Ct. _, 2021 WL 5027177 at 3 (October 29, 2021) (Gorsuch, J. dissenting).”

• “In addressing the geographic scope of the preliminary injunction, due to the nationwide scope of the CMS Mandate, a nationwide injunction is necessary due to the need for uniformity. Texas, 809 F.3d at 187-88. Although this Court considered limiting the injunction to the fourteen Plaintiff States, there are unvaccinated healthcare workers in other states who also need protection. Therefore, the scope of this injunction will be nationwide, except for the states of Alaska, Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, New Hampshire, Nebraska, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, since these ten states are already under a preliminary injunction order dated November 29, 2021, out of the Eastern District of Missouri.”

• “President-Elect Biden initially did not think vaccines should be mandatory11. On September 9, 2021, President Biden changed his mind announcing his intention to impose a national mandate…Both the OSHA Mandate and the CMS Mandate were imposed approximately two months later on November 5, 2021.”

• “After reviewing the reasons listed by CMS for bypassing the notice and comment requirement, the Court finds Plaintiff States are likely to succeed on the merits on this claim. It took CMS almost two months, from September 9, 2021 to November 5, 2021, to prepare the interim final rule at issue. Evidently, the situation was not so urgent that notice and comment were not required”

• The rejection of natural immunity as an alternative is puzzling. Natural immunity is the immunity of people who have been infected with the COVID-19 virus. In rejecting this alternative, the CMS Mandate stated: While a significant number of healthcare staff have been infected with SARS-Co-V2, evidence indicates their infection-induced immunity, also called “natural immunity” is not equivalent to receiving the COVID-19 vaccine. 86 Fed. Reg. at 61559.…The “evidence” CMS relied upon in rejecting that alternative is not provided. The Declaration of Dr. Jay Bhattachary,29 Director of Stanford University’s Center for Demography and Economics of Health and Aging disputes CMS’s assertion that natural immunity is not equivalent to receiving a COVID-19 vaccine. Citing studies from Qatar (which tracked 927,321 individuals for six months after COVID-19 vaccinations), California (which tracked the infection rates from over 5 million patients vaccinated with two Pfizer doses), and U.S. Veterans (which tracked 620,000 vaccinated U.S. Veterans), Plaintiff States assert these studies overwhelmingly conclude that natural immunity provides equivalent or greater protection against severe infection than immunity generated by COVID-19 vaccines.“

• “Additionally, the Plaintiff States provided evidence in the Declaration of Dr. Peter A. McCullough31 that the COVID-19 vaccines do not prevent transmission of the disease among the vaccinated or mixed vaccinated/unvaccinated populations, and that mandatory COVID-19 vaccines for hospitals do not increase safety for employees or hospital patients. McCullough declared that additional treatment with other drugs and supplements has resulted in an 85% reduction in hospitalizations and death of high-risk individuals presenting with COVID-19.”

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY CENTRAL DIVISION FRANKFORT: COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY, et al. VS JOSEPH R. BIDEN, in his official capacity as President of the United States, et al.: November 30, 2021

The question presented here is narrow ⁸⁾. Can the president use congressionally delegated authority to manage the federal procurement of goods and services to impose vaccines on the employees of federal contractors and subcontractors? Simply, can the federal government force vaccine mandates on contractors for the federal government?

• “The question presented here is narrow. Can the president use congressionally delegated authority to manage the federal procurement of goods and services to impose vaccines on the employees of federal contractors and subcontractors? In all likelihood, the answer to that question is no. So, for the reasons that follow, the pending request for a preliminary injunction will be GRANTED.”

• “Accordingly, and the Court being sufficiently advised and for the reasons set forth herein, it is hereby ORDERED as follows: 1. Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction [R. 12] is GRANTED; 2. The Government is ENJOINED from enforcing the vaccine mandate for federal contractors and subcontractors in all covered contracts in Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee.”

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA AUGUSTA DIVISION: THE STATE OF GEORGIA, et al., VS JOSEPH R. BIDEN, in his official capacity as President of the United States, et al.: December 7, 2021.

This case is about whether federal government contractors nationwide can implement a vaccine mandate as per the federal government order ⁹⁾.

Comments from the ruling:

• “Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that Defendants are ENJOINED, during the pendency of this action or until further order of this Court, from enforcing the vaccine mandate for federal contractors and subcontractors in all covered contracts in any state or territory of the United States of America.”

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO CENTRAL: CASE NO: 37-2021-00043172-CU-WM-CTL

This case was about whether California school boards could implement COVID-9 vaccine mandates. The judge ruled it was illegal to do so ¹⁰⁾. A San Diego COVID-19 vaccine mandate for students is struck down by the Court in a final decision on the merits. A court recognizes an unauthorized power grab.

Comments from the ruling:

• “the field of school vaccine mandates has been fully occupied by the State, and the Roadmap directly conflicts with state law. The addition of a COVID-19 vaccine mandate without a personal belief exemption must be imposed by the Legislature. Accordingly, this Court is compelled to GRANT the petitions for writ of mandate.”

Arbitration Ruling: Power Workers’ Union (the “PWU”) against the Electrical Safety Authority (the “ESA”)

This arbitration ¹¹⁾ challenged the vaccination mandate implemented by ESA. Arbitrator John Stout allowed the grievance given other options were available other than vaccination and he specifically stated:

• ”[e]mployees do not park their individual rights at the door when they accept employment.“

Supreme Court of the State of New York: Index No: 616124/2021

Hon. Thomas Rademaker issued a court judgement that the enforcement of school mask mandates and mask mandates in public places is not legally enforcable in the State of New York.

Royal Courts of Justice: Dr Samuel White VS the General Medical Council (GMC), December 2, 2021

Dr. White was initially criticized, then suspended by the NHS and the GMC for posting a video on Instagram critical of UK Covid-19 policy. Specifically, the action against him cited three main charges;

1. Through a social media video, Dr White spread misinformation and inaccurate details about the Coronavirus and how it is diagnosed and treated, including saying the vaccine is a form of genetic manipulation which can cause serious illness and death and that he advised against wearing masks. Specifically…

“In his seven-minute Instagram video Dr White looked to explain why he had resigned from his job as a GP. He laid out his experience as a doctor and advised he was leaving conventional medicine to pursue a career in functional medicine. He said he could no longer work in his previous roles ‘because of the lies’ surrounding the NHS and government approach to the pandemic which have been ‘so vast’ he could no longer ‘stomach or tolerate’ them. He claimed doctors and nurses were ‘having their hands tied behind their backs’ preventing them from using treatments that had been established as being effective both as prophylaxis from Covid19 infections and as treatments for it. He named hydroxychloroquine, budesonide inhalers and ivermectin as the drugs he was particularly concerned about. He called them ‘safe and proven treatments’ and he raised concerns that he had been prevented from offering these drugs as a form of ‘early intervention in the community’.

2. Dr White has potentially put patients at risk and diminished the public’s trust in the medical profession by disseminating misinformation and inaccurate details about the measures taken to tackle the Coronavirus pandemic.

3. Dr White signposted viewers of his online video to comments and articles of others on the internet who share the same views as him and this raises concerns as those individuals also promote information which is inaccurate or untrue.

In the above ruling ¹²⁾ the Honourable Mr. Justice Dove found in favor of Dr. White, mostly with regard to his fundamental human right to freedom of speech.

This ruling was then followed by a letter from Dr White's lawyers, PJH Law, to Amanda Pritchard, the Chief Executive of the National Health Service ¹³⁾. This letter refers to three areas;

1. A letter written to Sir Simon Stevens, Pritchard's predecessor, on July 2, 2021, alleging criminal conduct by way of gross negligence by the NHS, the UK government and the regulators, noting that there has been no response to this letter, only the unfair targeting of Dr. White (as confirmed by the above ruling). These allegations are then summarized for ease of reference.

2. A summary of the treatment of Dr. White since July 2, 2021.

3. The second half of the 12-page letter lists facts (well referenced, for the most part) that have come to light since July 2, 2021. These include vaccine harms; the incidences of cardiac arrest among athletes; patents uncovered for gain of function and various vaccines; the exaggerated risks of Covid-19 via the use of PCR tests that are not fit for purpose; misleading and inaccurate information backing the vaccine rollout; among many others.

2021, December 6

International Criminal Court Office of the Prosecutor Communications Post Office Box 19519 2500 CM The Hague The Netherlands EMAIL: otp.informationdesk@icc-cpi.int

BEFORE THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT (TREATY OF ROME STATUTE, ART. 15.1 AND 53)

Subject of complaint: - Violations of the Nuremberg Code - Violation of Article 6 of the Rome Statute - Violation of Article 7 of the Rome Statute - Violation of Article 8 of the Rome - Violation of Article 8 bis3 of the Rome Statute

Based on the extensive claims and enclosed documentation, we charge those responsible for numerous violations of the Nuremberg Code, crimes against humanity, war crimes and crimes of aggression in the United Kingdom, but not limited to individuals in these countries.

Perpetrators: Prime Minister for the United Kingdom BORIS JOHNSON, Chief Medical Officer for England and Chief Medical Adviser to the UK Government CHRISTOPHER WHITTY, (former) Secretary of State for Health and Social Care MATTHEW HANCOCK, (current) Secretary of State for Health and Social Care SAJID JAVID, Chief Executive of Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) JUNE RAINE, Director-General of the World Health Organisation TEDROS ADANHOM GHEBREYESUS, Co-chair of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation WILLIAM GATES III and Co-chair of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation MELINDA GATES, Chairman and Chief executive officer of Pfizer ALBERT BOURLA, Chief Executive Officer of AstraZeneca STEPHANE BANCEL, Chief Executive Officer of Moderna PASCAL SORIOT, Chief Executive of Johnson and Johnson ALEX GORSKY, President of the Rockefeller Foundation DR RAJIV SHAH, Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID) DR ANTHONY FAUCI, Founder and Executive Chairman of the World Economic Forum KLAUS SCWAB, President of EcoHealth Alliance DR PETER DASZACK

Victim(s): THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED KINGDOM

Applicants: Hannah Rose – Lawyer and human rights activist Dr Mike Yeadon – Qualified life science researcher with a degree in biochemistry in toxicology, and a research-based PhD in respiratory pharmacology, former Vice President and Chief Scientist of allergy and respiratory research at Pfizer Piers Corbyn – Astrophysicist and activist Mark Sexton – Retired Police officer John O’Loony – Funeral Director and activist Johnny McStay – Activist Louise Shotbolt – Nurse and human rights activist

Legal representation and election of domicile

The applicants will be represented for the purposes of this procedure by Hannah Rose Email: hannahroses111@hotmail.com

Consequently, all subsequent correspondence shall be sent only to the email address given above. Any notification within the meaning of the Statute of the Court addressed in this way will be considered valid.

Mr Prosecutor,

1 This communication and complaint is provided to the office of the Prosecutor pursuant to the United Kingdom’s accession to the International Criminal Court’s Rome Statute deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations on October 4, 2000.

https://hannahroselaw.co.uk/icc-complaint-uk/

Armstrong Economics

State of Missouri (Circuit Court of Cole County): Shannon Robinson et al. VS Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services: November 22, 2021

This case is about whether the powers granted to the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services to create public health laws is justified/constitutional.

Comments from the final ruling ¹⁴⁾

• “This case is about whether Missouri's Department of Health and Senior Services regulations can abolish representative government in the creation of public health laws, and whether it can authorize closer of a school or assembly based on the unfettered opinion of an unelected official. This court finds it cannot.”

• “Separation of powers among the three branches of government - legislative, administrative, judicial - is fundamental to the preservation of liberty. DHSS regulations break our three-branch system of government in ways that a middle school civics student would recognize because they place the creation of orders or laws, and enforcement of those laws, into the hands of an unelected administrative official.”

• “A health agency director with the authority to shut down a school or assembly wields incredible power to coerce his subjects into submission. DHSS's permissive closure regulation effectively converts the recommendations, and even whims, of a health agency director into enforceable law.”…“This incredible power cannot be placed in the hands of one bureaucrat.”

• “Schools and places of public assemblies should no longer fear arbitrary closure based on the whims of public health bureaucrats. This system is entirely inconsistent with representative government and separation of powers and makes a mockery of our Missouri's Constitution and the concept of separation of powers.”

Substack TechnoFog - The OSHA COVID-19 Mandate has been defeated. And - Justices Roberts and Kavanaugh help uphold the CMS Mandate.

Today, the Supreme Court stayed the implementation of the Occupational Health and Safety Administration’s (OSHA) COVID-19 vaccine mandate, stating

Applicants now seek emergency relief from this Court, arguing that OSHA’s mandate exceeds its statutory authority and is otherwise unlawful. Agreeing that applicants are likely to prevail, we grant their applications and stay the rule.

You can read the full opinion here. Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan dissented – meaning that Justices Roberts, Thomas, Kavanaugh, Barrett, Alito, and Gorsuch voted in favor of staying the OSHA Mandate.

The effect of the stay is that the OSHA Mandate is essentially struck. It’s over. It won’t be implemented. In reaching this decision, the Court relied on the major questions doctrine (aka major rules doctrine), which we discussed here in arguing why the OSHA Mandate was unlawful. For those of you keeping score, we made this argument despite Twitter’s assurances that the OSHA Mandate was lawful.

¹⁵⁾

Decision - SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Nos. 21A244 and 21A247 NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS, ET AL., APPLICANTS 21A244 v. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION, ET AL.

OHIO, ET AL., APPLICANTS 21A247 v. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, OCCUPATIONAL SAFETYAND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION, ET AL. ON APPLICATIONS FOR STAYS [January 13, 2022]

¹⁶⁾

Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa 3a Secção, Proc. No 1783/20.7T8PDL.L1: November 11, 2020

This court in Portugal ruled that RT-PCR COVID-19 testing has up to a 97% false-positive rate above a cycle threshold of 35 and is not a suitable test for COVID-19 diagnosis. ¹⁷⁾

Administrative Court: IN THE NAME OF THE REPUBLIC: The Administrative Court of Vienna , through its judge Dr. Frank about that Complaint of Freedom Paftei Austria, country group Vienna: March 31, 2021

This court document from Austria also questions suitability of RT-PCR tests (by themselves) for diagnosing a “case” of COVID-19. ¹⁸⁾

Tribunal Adminostrativo de Circulo de Lisboa Juizo Administrativo Comum: Processo n.525/21.4BELSB: May 19, 2021

This court document from Portugal indicate that it is possible that as of May 19, 2021, only 0.9% of officially tracked COVID-19 deaths were caused solely by COVID-19. ¹⁹⁾

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/21A247/205640/20211218002842314_SCOTUS%20Stay%20Request%20-%20OSHA.pdf

https://phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/5.3.6-postmarketing-experience.pdf

https://covidconstitutionalchallengebc.ca/court-documents

November 12, 2021 ORDER DENYING #3 and #10 PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION MOTIONS signed by JUDGE ALLEN C WINSOR in Does vs. LLOYD AUSTIN, III, in his official capacity as Secretary of Defense, et al.

–The FDA also concluded that “there is not sufficient approved vaccine [Comirnaty] available for distribution to [the approved] population in its entirety.” Id. at 6 n.9. Thus, Pfizer continues to produce vials of vaccine that are labeled as an EUA drug with packaging material saying, “This product has not been approved or licensed by the FDA . . . .” Id. at 12-13. And there “remains . . . a significant amount of [Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine] that was manufactured and labeled in accordance with [the EUA].” Id. at 12.