603 F.Supp.3d 1050
D.N.M.2022Background
- In Jan 2021 Dona Ana County Manager issued a Vaccine Directive requiring first responders (including detention officers) to receive COVID-19 vaccination or seek an accommodation; vaccination was made a condition of continued employment.
- Plaintiffs Isaac Legaretta and Anthony Zoccoli, both detention-center employees, refused vaccination or to request accommodations; Legaretta was reassigned and later quit; Zoccoli was terminated.
- Plaintiffs sued (Amended Complaint) asserting federal claims: FDCA preemption (21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3), substantive due process (bodily integrity), unconstitutional conditions, and an international human-rights/Nuremberg-code claim; they also pleaded New Mexico state claims (Whistleblowers Act and retaliatory discharge).
- Defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim and filed supplemental authorities; Plaintiffs moved to strike those notices.
- The court dismissed all federal claims with prejudice, declined supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims (dismissed without prejudice), and denied Plaintiffs’ motion to strike the supplemental authorities.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| FDCA preemption (21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3) | §360bbb-3 prohibits mandating EUA (unapproved) products, so County cannot coerce vaccination | Pfizer vaccine is FDA-approved for 16+; EUA informed-consent requirements govern medical providers and do not bar employers from imposing vaccination conditions | Dismissed: FDCA does not bar County mandate; no preemption/federal prohibition proven |
| Substantive due process (bodily integrity/right to refuse medical treatment) | Vaccine mandate infringes fundamental right to bodily integrity and to refuse medical treatment | Policy conditions employment, does not forcibly inject or coerce medical treatment; right to continued public employment is not fundamental; Jacobson/rational-basis review applies | Dismissed: no fundamental right implicated; mandate rationally related to legitimate public-health interest under Jacobson |
| Unconstitutional-conditions doctrine | Conditioning employment on vaccination coerces Plaintiffs to give up constitutional rights | No enumerated fundamental right is being coerced; choice presented is employment vs. vaccination | Dismissed: Plaintiffs failed to identify a fundamental right; claim fails |
| International human-rights / Nuremberg Code (crimes against humanity) | Mandating vaccines constitutes nonconsensual human experimentation and violates jus cogens / Nuremberg principles | Nuremberg/experimental-experimentation analogies inapplicable to an FDA-authorized vaccine mandate; no supporting international-law cause of action | Dismissed: Plaintiffs failed to plead applicable international norms or legal basis; claim not cognizable |
| State-law claims & Procedural (motion to strike notices) | Asserted New Mexico Whistleblowers Act and retaliatory discharge; sought to strike Defendants’ supplemental authority filings | Defendants urged dismissal of federal claims; Notices complied with Local Rule 7.8 | Court declined supplemental jurisdiction over state claims (dismissed without prejudice); Motion to Strike denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard: plausibility required; legal conclusions not assumed true)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for complaints)
- Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) (state police power permits vaccination mandates to protect public health)
- Zucht v. King, 260 U.S. 174 (1922) (upholding school vaccination requirement under police powers)
- Cruzan v. Dir., Missouri Dep’t of Health, 497 U.S. 261 (1990) (recognition of right to refuse unwanted medical treatment in certain contexts)
- Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Mgmt. Dist., 570 U.S. 595 (2013) (framework for unconstitutional-conditions doctrine)
- City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432 (1985) (rational-basis review principles)
- Conn v. Gabbert, 526 U.S. 286 (1999) (liberty interest in choice of profession is subject to reasonable regulation)
- Guttman v. Khalsa, 669 F.3d 1101 (10th Cir. 2012) (right to practice chosen profession does not trigger heightened scrutiny)
- Klaassen v. Trustees of Indiana Univ., 7 F.4th 592 (7th Cir. 2021) (upholding university COVID-19 vaccine mandate under deferential review/Jacobson principles)