Rutgers Mandate Lawsuit Rally – Save the Date!
Be there. Make them play fair.
Please join the New Jersey and Pennsylvania chapters of Children’s Health Defense for a rally in Philadelphia to show support for the plaintiffs in the Rutgers mandate case and the CHD legal team as we gather to deliver a strong message to the judges that informed consent matters.
We are awaiting confirmation of final details, but please mark your calendars:
When: Tuesday, June 27, 9am-12pm
Where: James A. Byrne US Courthouse, 601 Market St, Philadelphia, PA 19106
*Bus transportation is in the works. Please reach out to via nj.team@childrenshealthdefense.org if you are interested in getting a seat on the bus.
Sieze the Day
On Tuesday, June 27, Julio Gomez, lead attorney in the case CHD against Rutgers University, plans to give his oral argument before a panel of 3 judges. We need to show up strong and let everyone involved know we’re paying attention.
Important legal precedents are at stake. Rutgers University was one of the first universities in the country to mandate the COVID vaccine, leading the way for mandates in educational institutions throughout the country. Lucrative public-private partnerships and multiple conflicts of interest may have muddied the waters as Rutger’s COVID policy was created prompting serious questions as to whether the institution is more invested in following science or leading it in a pre-ordained direction.
The decision in this case has the potential to impact states covered by the 3rd Circuit (NJ, DE, PA, the Virgin Islands) and possibly the entire country depending on the ruling.
The History of CHD vs. Rutgers
In August 2021, Children’s Health Defense joined 18 students to file a lawsuit in federal court against Rutgers University over its decision to mandate COVID vaccines for students attending school in the fall. The lawsuit alleged Rutgers’ policy, which included those attending class remotely, was a violation of the right to informed consent and the right to refuse unwanted medical treatments.
On Sept. 9, 2022, more than a year after CHD initially sued the university, Judge Quraishi granted Rutgers’ motion to dismiss.
In January of 2023, Gomez filed the first appeal brief and appendix on behalf of CHD with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Philadelphia after CHD lost in the district court. Among other things, CHD asserts that the District Court of New Jersey didn’t follow the legal standard when it dismissed CHD’s case.
Julio Gomez explains to Mary Holland on CHD.TV just after the 35 minute mark:
Julio Gomez: The case was brought by 18 students and Children’s Health Defense in August of 2021. The purpose was to challenge Rutgers’ decision to mandate COVID-19 vaccination for enrollment and matriculation at Rutgers. That decision was made in April of 2021. It was roughly 4 months after these experimental vaccines hit the market. It was also made 3 months after Rutgers had told the student body and the public that it wasn’t going to mandate these vaccines.
What we have learned since is that Rutgers is involved in clinical trials for all three main vaccine manufacturers – Pfizer, Moderna and Johnson and Johnson. And we’ve alleged in our complaint that Rutger’s decision to issue this mandates was motivated or influenced by these entanglements with these companies.
The case was brought initially in the federal court in Trenton. The district judge there dismissed our case last year in September. We filed an appeal in the federal court of appeals because we believe that that judge made a wrong decision in dismissing our case and we’re trying to convince the court of all the errors that were made. In particular, whether Rutgers has any legal authority to mandate vaccines to begin with. And also, what is the level of review that is supposed to be given, and the weight given, to a student’s right to choose to exercise informed consent and to choose medical treatment and to refuse medical treatment.
We all have what we consider a fundamental right to make that decision, and that fundamental control over our bodies, and we don’t believe that Rutgers or anyone else should be coercing anyone to make that decision against their will. That’s what our case is about.
Mary Holland: Can you tell us a little bit more about the many things that you believe that this district court judge got wrong?…
JG: The principle thing that he got wrong is that he is required at this stage in the case to accept all of the facts in our case as true. That’s the standard on a motion to dismiss because the case has just begun. So he assumes in his decision that the vaccines are safe, that the vaccines are effective, that the vaccines prevent infection and that they prevent transmission, and as a result that COVID is a vaccine preventable disease. Now it’s only with those assumptions made, that you can make the determination that Rutgers had a reasonable reason for mandating these vaccines and that the vaccines are reasonably related to preventing transmission on campus.
All of those facts are contested. All of those facts are in dispute.
We point out and very much detail how ineffective these vaccines were and we also especially point out that, at the time of the mandate, and even now, there was limited date, almost no data, to suggest that these vaccines prevent transmission.
The experimental nature, in terms of the facts, is one of the things that the judge simply refused to accept. And he must at this stage.
Additionally, the judge made almost no determination or reasoned conclusion as to why Rutgers, why a university has the power to mandate vaccines, much less experimental vaccines, early on in this pandemic…
And then beyond that, the most important question is what is the weight that is supposed to be given to a person’s right to informed consent and to refuse unwanted medical treatment. How much respect does that right get in today’s modern jurisprudence?
The court ignored in a whole line of cases, decided primarily in the 90s, which say that informed consent is a fundamental right and more importantly that it’s deeply rooted in our nation’s history and constitutional traditions. And if that’s the case than this worthy of classification as a fundamental right. And what that means is that a court has to be very strict in its assessment of how the government regulates that right, controls that right or diminishes that right.
Our complaint alleges that these students were coerced to take these vaccines. You can’t tell a student that if they don’t take the vaccine they can just go to another college.
That’s not a choice. That’s extortion.
Our college students deserve better. Please join us in Philadelphia and help us create a win for informed consent and ALL students of higher education.