"Summary
COVID-19/Mootness
The panel vacated the district court's order dismissing plaintiff's action alleging that the COVID-19 vaccination policy of the Los Angeles Unified School District ('LAUSD')—which, until twelve days after oral argument, required employees to get the COVID-19 vaccination or lose their jobs—interfered with their fundamental right to refuse medical treatment...
Addressing the merits, the panel held that the district court misapplied the Supreme Court’s decision in Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905), in concluding that the Policy survived rational basis review. Jacobson held that mandatory vaccinations were rationally related to preventing the spread of smallpox. Here, however, plaintiffs allege that the vaccine does not effectively prevent spread but only mitigates symptoms for the recipient and therefore is akin to a medical treatment, not a 'traditional' vaccine. Taking plaintiffs’ allegations as true at this stage of litigation, plaintiffs plausibly alleged that the COVID-19 vaccine does not effectively 'prevent the spread' of COVID-19. Thus, Jacobson does not apply...
IV
... This misapplies Jacobson. Jacobson held that mandatory vaccinations were rationally related to 'preventing the spread' of smallpox... Jacobson, however, did not involve a claim in which the compelled vaccine was 'designed to reduce symptoms in the infected vaccine recipient rather than to prevent transmission and infection.' ... The district court thus erred in holding that Jacobson extends beyond its public health rationale—government's power to mandate prophylactic measures aimed at preventing the recipient from spreading disease to others—to also govern 'forced medical treatment' for the recipient's benefit.
At this stage, we must accept Plaintiff's allegations that the vaccine does not prevent the spread of COVID-19 as true. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556. And, because of this, Jacobson does not apply...
V
This case is not moot. And the district court wrongly applied Jacobson to the substantive due process claim. Thus, we vacate the district court's order and remand."