Washington, D.C., Jan. 29, 2026 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — The New Civil Liberties Alliance filed an amicus curiae brief today urging the U.S. Supreme Court to hear Health Freedom Defense Fund v. Carvalho and clarify that the Court's 1905 Jacobson v. Massachusetts decision only allows vaccine mandates when they benefit third parties beyond the recipient of the vaccine. Jacobson upheld a Cambridge, Massachusetts vaccination that was mandated during a 1902 smallpox outbreak. That smallpox vaccine stopped vaccinated people from spreading the disease to others.
The plaintiffs in this lawsuit against the Los Angeles Unified School District alleged facts that, if true, established that the Covid-19 vaccines do not stop vaccinated people from spreading Covid to others. NCLA's amicus brief argues that Jacobson therefore cannot govern Covid vaccines. But the district court and the en banc U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit wrongly assumed that Jacobson authorizes any government medical order labeled a vaccine mandate. So, NCLA is asking the Justices to reverse the en banc Ninth Circuit's ruling, explain that Jacobson does not apply to all vax mandates, and safeguard civil liberties from invasive medical treatments.
Since the Covid pandemic began, a variety of courts nationwide have incorrectly interpreted Jacobson to uphold any policy labeled a vaccine mandate, effectively rubber-stamping any such government-imposed requirement as constitutional under a “rational basis” standard of review. But Jacobson itself balanced the plaintiff's liberty interest in declining the unwanted smallpox vaccine against the State's interest in preventing that disease from spreading. The government must demonstrate that there is a substantial public-health rationale–such as stopping the spread of the disease to others–before it can override individuals' liberty interests and mandate vaccination.
Covid vaccines have never been shown to prevent transmission. Evidence shows the manufacturers of Covid-19 vaccines never claimed the vaccines prevented transmission and that they, in fact, do not do so. The L.A. Unified School District knew or should have known that requiring its employees to be vaccinated would not keep them from spreading the virus. This means the school district had no legal justification under Jacobson for overriding its employees' right to refuse medical treatment by firing them for refusing to comply with the vaccine mandate.
The Supreme Court has consistently issued decisions since Jacobson ruling that individuals have a substantial liberty interest in being free from unwanted medical care. The en banc Ninth Circuit failed to follow those more recent decisions protecting the right to decline such medical treatments, so the Justices must correct that error.
NCLA released the following statements:
“Lower courts have continually cited Jacobson v. Massachusetts to justify some of government's most egregious civil liberties violations in recent memory. This case offers the Supreme Court the opportunity to correct those wrongs and ensure that Jacobson does not continue to erode fundamental American liberties.”
— Christian Clase, Constitutional Litigation Fellow, NCLA
“From George Washington to Jacobson, governments have applied vaccine mandates when they stop the spread of deadly diseases. Equally, the Constitution has protected the right to refuse medical treatment in most other contexts.”
— John Vecchione, Senior Litigation Counsel, NCLA
“Jacobson was argued and decided barely a year after the Wright Brothers first flew at Kitty Hawk. Science has come a long way since 1905, and it is long past time for the U.S. Supreme Court to revisit this decision. Now that antibody testing exists to determine if someone has natural immunity, it makes no sense to permit the government to order folks with immunity to be vaccinated at peril of losing their jobs. Nor may the government override anyone's right to refuse medical treatment unless a vaccine stops transmission to other people.”
— Mark Chenoweth, President, NCLA
For more information visit the amicus page here.
ABOUT NCLA
NCLA is a nonpartisan, nonprofit civil rights group founded by prominent legal scholar Philip Hamburger to protect constitutional freedoms from violations by the Administrative State. NCLA's public-interest litigation and other pro bono advocacy strive to tame the unlawful power of state and federal agencies and to foster a new civil liberties movement that will help restore Americans' fundamental rights.
###
Joe MartyakNew Civil Liberties Alliance703-403-1111joe.martyak@ncla.legal