U.S. Court in New Jersey Rejects Health Care Workers’ Bid to Block State’s COVID-19 Booster Mandate
- June 10, 2022
A federal court in New Jersey refused June 7 to enjoin enforcement of a requirement that health care workers in the state be up to date with their COVID-19 vaccinations, including boosters.
Plaintiffs are several health care workers who said they could their jobs and becoming unemployable if they don’t comply with a series of executive orders issued by New Jersey Governor Philip Murphy requiring them to receive COVID-19 booster shots. Plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction in court, arguing the executive orders were unconstitutional.
In an unpublished opinion, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey denied plaintiffs’ a preliminary injunction from the booster requirement, finding they were unlikely to succeed on the merits of their constitutional claims.
Plaintiffs argued the executive orders violated their substantive due process rights because they interfered with the fundamental rights of privacy and “declin[ing] unwanted medical procedures.”
Although plaintiffs contended their claims should be reviewed under strict scrutiny, the court disagreed and held the booster requirement passed muster under rational-basis review.
In so holding, the court rejected plaintiffs’ contention that the Supreme Court’s decision in Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905), which upheld a vaccine requirement in Massachusetts for smallpox, was inapplicable in the COVID-19 context.
“The Court joins numerous other courts, both in this district and across the country, to conclude that Jacobson established that there is no fundamental right to refuse vaccination in the context of COVID-19 and thus rational basis review applies to vaccine requirements,” the opinion said.
Applying rational-basis review, the court found “no serious question that the government has a legitimate interest in preventing the spread of COVID-19,” and in “protecting the health of its citizens.”
The executive orders were rationally related to the state’s interest in stemming the spread of COVID-19, reducing the risk of serious illness or hospitalization, and maintaining a safe environment for providing health care services, the court added.
Numerous courts, including the Supreme Court, have reached a similar conclusion, the court said. See Biden v. Missouri, 142 S. Ct. 647 (2022) (noting “ensuring that providers take steps to avoid transmitting a dangerous virus to their patients is consistent with the fundamental principle of the medical profession: first, do no harm." ).
The court said its role was not to weigh “opposing theories” about the efficacy or safety of the vaccine or the best way to prevent COVID’s spread. Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the executive orders were “irrational,” even if there was disagreement about the necessity of boosters for health care workers, the court added.
The court also found plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on their procedural due process claim that the executive orders deprive them of their ability to use their licenses. Even assuming plaintiffs’ licenses to practice are protected property interests, they failed to show that the executive orders would in fact cause them to lose their licenses, the court said.
Sczesny v. New Jersey, Civ. No. 22-2314 (GC) (D.N.J. June 7, 2022).