Jeanna Norris v. Samuel Stanley, Jr., 73 F.4th 431

In August 2021 Michigan State University adopted a mandatory COVID-19 vaccine policy for all faculty and staff (including remote employees); FDA- or WHO-approved vaccines satisfied the requirement.
Medical exemptions were limited to CDC-recognized contraindications and ADA disabilities; natural immunity (prior infection/antibodies) was not recognized as a medical exemption.
Three employees with documented prior COVID-19 infections/antibodies (Norris, Ehm, Rohrer) refused vaccination; Ehm was terminated, Rohrer placed on unpaid leave, Norris obtained a religious exemption and faced no discipline.
Plaintiffs sued seeking declaratory and injunctive relief on three grounds: substantive due process (bodily autonomy/decline medical treatment), unconstitutional condition on employment, and federal preemption under the EUA statute (21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3).
The district court dismissed all counts, applying Jacobson/rational-basis review to the due-process claim, rejecting the unconstitutional-condition and preemption theories; plaintiffs appealed.
MSU later rescinded the policy, but the appeal remained live because plaintiffs sought nominal damages and the challenged employment actions had not been undone.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Substantive due process: Does MSU’s vaccine mandate violate liberty interests in bodily integrity/autonomy?	Forcing vaccination (or termination) overrides fundamental liberty; natural immunity makes vaccination medically unnecessary.	Jacobson governs; the mandate furthers public health and is rationally related to that interest.	Rational basis applies (Jacobson). Policy upheld as rationally related to public-health interest.
Unconstitutional condition: Is conditioning employment on vaccination an unconstitutional waiver of rights?	Requiring vaccination as a term of employment coerces waiver of bodily-autonomy rights.	No coercion where government acts as employer enforcing a rational health policy; plaintiffs show no underlying constitutional violation.	Fails: because the policy is constitutional under rational-basis review, the unconstitutional-condition claim cannot succeed.
Preemption / Supremacy Clause: Does the EUA statute bar employer vaccine mandates or render them irrational?	EUA requires that individuals be informed of option to accept or refuse; that conflicts with employer mandates and preempts state action.	EUA’s informed-consent language governs provider–patient interactions and does not prohibit employment-based vaccination requirements; no express HHS condition forbids such mandates.	Fails: statute does not preempt or invalidate MSU’s employment vaccination requirement.

Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) (upholding mandatory vaccination; court applies deferential "real or substantial relation" standard)
New York Rapid Transit Corp. v. City of New York, 303 U.S. 573 (1938) (rational-basis principle: legislation not arbitrary if any conceivable state of facts sustains it)
Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, 141 S. Ct. 63 (2020) (recognizing public-health interests but applying constitutional review principles in COVID context)
S. Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, 140 S. Ct. 1613 (2020) (per curiam decision addressing public-health restrictions and judicial review)
Klaassen v. Trustees of Indiana Univ., 7 F.4th 592 (7th Cir. 2021) (upholding university vaccine policies under deferential review in COVID context)
Planned Parenthood of Greater Ohio v. Hodges, 917 F.3d 908 (6th Cir. 2019) (doctrine on unconstitutional-condition claims)
Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452 (1991) (permitting employment conditions when only rational basis is required)
Waters v. Churchill, 511 U.S. 661 (1994) (government has broader authority when acting as employer)