Loading ...Supreme Court refuses to hear the case so mandates are back! If a state health official has reasonable belief a vaccine can save lives, they can mandate the vaccine no matter how deadly the vaccine actually is.
https://x.com/stkirsch/status/2056542586186457094
3 1/2 minutes
Supreme Court refuses to hear the case so mandates are back! If a state health official has reasonable belief a vaccine can save lives, they can mandate the vaccine no matter how deadly the vaccine actually is. TRUE?
Copilot said:
Copilot
Short answer: No — that claim is NOT true.
It mixes a real legal concept with incorrect conclusions.
Here’s what’s actually going on:
? 1) “Supreme Court refused to hear a case” — what that really means
When the U.S. Supreme Court declines a case:
It does NOT rule on the issue itself
It does NOT set a nationwide rule
It does NOT mean the Court agrees with anything in the case
It simply means the Court chose not to review it.
legalclarity
? The only effect is:
The lower court’s decision stays in place for that case
It does not automatically change laws everywhere
? 2) Vaccine mandates are not “anything goes”
There is a long-standing precedent (from 1905, Jacobson v. Massachusetts) that:
States can require vaccines under their public health powers
wikipedia
But only under limits
Courts have always said mandates must:
Be reasonable and related to a real public health threat
uslawexplained
Not be arbitrary, oppressive, or unjustified
uslawexplained
Still respect constitutional protections (e.g., due process, religious accommodation in some contexts)
? So it’s NOT true that a health official can mandate a vaccine “no matter how deadly.”
? 3) Recent Supreme Court actions don’t support that claim
Recent news shows:
The Court has declined to hear some vaccine-related cases
militarytimes
+1
But those were specific disputes (e.g., military policy, employer mandates)
The Court has not issued any ruling saying vaccines can be mandated regardless of safety
Also:
Claims that the Supreme Court ruled vaccines are unsafe or unlimited in use are factually incorrect and debunked
factually
This is exactly what the video says — the Supreme Court refused to review the Ninth Circuit ruling which means that their original ruling stands. It confirms that the Ninth Circuit ruling will remain in effect unchanged! It then goes on to discuss their opinion on what the impact of the Ninth Circuit ruling is.
There was NO verbage about why the Supreme Court made this decision nor the process therein.
The only comment made was an observation that the refusal may mean that previous precedents may no longer apply but that is an opinion versus anything stated by the courts.
This was a technical ruling and the party being ruled agains’t is merely stating their position and raising their view of implications to the populace.