93 F.4th 66
3d Cir.2024Background
- In April 2021 Rutgers required COVID-19 vaccination as a condition of in-person enrollment and campus access; exemptions were available for medical reasons, bona fide religious beliefs, or enrollment in a fully online degree program.
- Rutgers later extended the requirement to health/public-safety personnel (June 2021) and to all faculty and staff (Oct. 2021); exempt students faced testing/masking and exclusion from housing.
- Plaintiffs: 13 students and Children’s Health Defense (CHD). Twelve students obtained exemptions; one student (Adriana Pinto) did not and was disenrolled. Complaint asserted federal and state claims plus constitutional challenges and sought damages and injunctive relief.
- District Court dismissed all claims (mootness and failure to state a claim). Third Circuit considered standing, preemption under the EUA statute (21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3), state ultra vires challenge, substantive due process, and equal protection.
- Third Circuit affirmed: plaintiffs had standing (including exempt students on housing/related injuries); Jacobson controls (no fundamental right to refuse vaccination); EUA preemption failed; New Jersey statutes/regulations authorized Rutgers’ actions; rational-basis review applied and was satisfied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Federal preemption under EUA (21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3) | EUA forbids coercing experimental products; Rutgers’ policy coerces vaccination and thus conflicts with federal law. | Section 360bbb-3 governs HHS/provider obligations re: informed consent; it does not prohibit institutions from conditioning attendance; students retained the option to refuse or apply for exemption. | Dismissed—no preemption: statute does not impose obligations on Rutgers and Rutgers’ policy did not eliminate the option to refuse. |
| State-law ultra vires (authority to require vaccine and exclude exempt students from housing) | Rutgers lacked statutory authority to impose COVID-19 vaccination condition or to exclude exempted students from housing. | N.J.S.A. § 18A:61D-1 and N.J. Admin. Code § 8:57-6.4 authorize institutions to require ACIP‑recommended immunizations; other regs permit temporary exclusion in outbreaks and allow institutions additional immunization requirements. | Dismissed—Rutgers had statutory authority to require vaccination and to condition campus access/housing under state law. |
| Substantive due process / fundamental right to refuse vaccination | Students asserted a liberty/fundamental right to refuse vaccination and/or to avoid unconstitutional conditions. | No fundamental right exists; Jacobson permits public‑health measures and rational‑basis review applies; conditioning in‑person attendance is not an unconstitutional condition. | Dismissed—no fundamental right; rational basis applied and satisfied because protecting public health and minimizing outbreaks is a legitimate purpose. |
| Equal protection (a) students v. staff/faculty; (b) vaccinated v. naturally immune | (a) Disparate treatment: students were initially required to vaccinate while staff/faculty were not. (b) Naturally immune students are similarly situated to vaccinated students and should be treated alike. | (a) Students and staff are not similarly situated (different regulatory treatment, dormitory congregate living, phased approach). (b) CDC and state rules treat natural immunity differently; no reliable lab test met regulatory standards. | Dismissed—rational‑basis review applies; plaintiffs failed to plead similarly situated comparators and Rutgers’ differential treatment was rational. (Court also held staff/faculty aspect moot as to injunctive relief but not as to damages; nevertheless claim failed on merits.) |
Key Cases Cited
- Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) (upholding vaccination requirement as a valid exercise of state public‑health power; no absolute right to refuse vaccination)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard: accept well‑pleaded facts, not legal conclusions)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
- TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 141 S. Ct. 2190 (2021) (Article III standing requirements)
- Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, 141 S. Ct. 63 (2020) (recognizing public‑health interests in pandemic context; plural citations to Jacobson’s continuing relevance)
- Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Org., 142 S. Ct. 2228 (2022) (discussion of fundamental rights and scrutiny analysis)
- City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, 473 U.S. 432 (1985) (equal protection: similarly situated requirement and levels of scrutiny)
- Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Mgmt. Dist., 570 U.S. 595 (2013) (unconstitutional‑conditions doctrine)