Physicians for Informed Consent submits amicus brief to U.S. Supreme Court in pivotal vaccine mandates case

“Physicians for Informed Consent (PIC), an educational nonprofit organization focused on science and statistics, filed an amicus brief in support of plaintiff college students who are declining COVID-19 vaccination at Indiana University (i.e., the case of Ryan Klaassen, et al. v. Trustees of Indiana University).

Indiana University recently mandated COVID-19 vaccination for college students. While the college does offer a religious exemption, the college is still requiring unvaccinated students to wear masks and engage in frequent SARS-CoV-2 testing, even if the student proves natural immunity. The plaintiff students brought suit in Federal Court in Indiana (1:21-CV-238 DRL) requesting an emergency injunction because they claim the mandate is unscientific and unconstitutional, and believe government-funded institutions should not be discriminating between citizens based on vaccination status. The trial court denied the request for emergency relief. The plaintiffs then appealed to the 7th Circuit Federal Appeals Court (Case No. 21-2326), which denied the appeal. Plaintiffs have now appealed further to the US Supreme Court (Case Number: 21A15). Per Greg Glaser, PIC General Counsel, “If the Supreme Court is willing to hear the case, it will be particularly significant to instruct courts on how to analyze vaccine cases in the modern day. If the Supreme Court applies ‘strict scrutiny,’ the likely outcome is that unvaccinated students cannot be segregated and discriminated against. But if the Supreme Court applies ‘rational basis scrutiny,’ then the likely outcome is that Indiana University will be allowed to continue its segregation policy. PIC advocates for informed consent as a fundamental right, and therefore strict scrutiny.”

Read the full article at Physicians for Informed Consent.

Leave a Reply