3/31/2023 0 Comments Justice william dato![]() That year the lawmakers also looked at whether vaccines should be imposed by individual school districts or statewide. This law enacted in 1995 allowed for a broad personal belief exemption, but in 2015 this was removed from the law, as to the ten required immunizations. The trial judge found that state law preempts the vaccine requirement: “I think that the state…has fully occupied this field, there’s a statewide standard, and a local school district simply doesn’t have the authority to do something inconsistent with the statewide standard.” Legislature Wanted Consistent Policies The state-wide law says that schools, “shall not” admit kids who have not been vaccinated for, “polio, diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, hepatitis B, haemophilus influenzae type B (HIB), measles, mumps, rubella, and chicken pox.” Each vaccine was added based on action by the state legislature after due consideration of public health factors. It did neither.” Trial Court Determined State Law Preempts SDUSD’s Mandate In late 2021, Let Them Choose and the anonymous “S.V.” filed complaints challenging SDUSD’s mandate, and the cases were joined for trial. The District could have raised this issue at least five months ago, either by motion or in its reply brief in response to an argument by Let Them Choose that the postponement did not make the case moot. ![]() Dato’s response was that “For obvious considerations of fairness, we ordinarily do not consider points made for the first time at oral argument… and we decline to do so here. They also said mootness was shown as to one plaintiff as he was due to graduate high school around the time the mandate kicks in. Mootness Argument Shut Down: SDUSD Five Months Late One argument made by SDUSD during the oral arguments was that the case had become “moot” or no longer relevant in that they had put off implementation of the mandate to July 2023 or beyond. This Roadmap allowed for medical, but not religious or personal belief, exemptions. Making a good point, the newspaper notes that, “Since the spring, there has been little discussion of student vaccine mandates in California as public tolerance for COVID-19 restrictions and alarm about the virus have dwindled.” Trial Court Had Rejected SDUSD’s “Vaccination Roadmap” Turning to Dato’s decision, he notes that the trial court had determined that there is a “statewide standard for school vaccination,” which leaves “no room for each of the over 1,000 individual school districts to impose a patchwork of additional vaccine mandates.” In September 2021 SDUSD adopted a “Vaccination Roadmap” mandating that youth 16 or older receive a COVID-19 vaccine for either in-person attendance or extracurricular activities. The mandate would have disallowed any personal belief exemption, and in May it was put on pause until July 2023 or later. According to the Los Angeles Times, plaintiff’s attorney Lee Andelin said, “This is a great win for children and the rule of law and ensures consistency statewide.” The paper also reports that SDUSD was one of the few in that state to impose a COVID-19 vaccine mandate. SDUSD, and this plaintiff is an offshoot of the nonprofit group Let Them Breathe. The new ruling involves two joined cases, including Let Them Choose, etc. Last December a trial court ruled against SDUSD, and they appealed the decision. ![]() “A Great Win for Children and the Rule of Law” In a November 22 ruling, Justice William Dato of California’s Fourth District Court of Appeal found that state law preempts San Diego Unified School District’s (SDUSD) effort to impose a COVID-19 vaccine mandate. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |