MESSINA v. THE COLLEGE OF NEW JERSEY
566 F.Supp.3d 236
D.N.J.2021Background
- Plaintiffs are current (and one deferred) students at The College of New Jersey (TCNJ) who challenged TCNJ’s May 10, 2021 COVID‑19 vaccine mandate and sought a temporary restraining order/preliminary injunction on Sept. 27, 2021.
- TCNJ required students to be fully vaccinated (FDA/WHO authorized) by Aug. 9, 2021 or apply for exemptions (medical or sincerely held religious belief); exempt students remain subject to periodic review.
- Exempt students must undergo twice‑weekly COVID testing, daily health screening, social distancing, are restricted from campus housing, certain activities, and some travel; exemption records become part of immunization files.
- Plaintiffs asserted Fourteenth Amendment claims (liberty/privacy substantive due process, equal protection), Fourth Amendment (unreasonable search), and § 1983 relief, arguing strict scrutiny should apply and that Jacobson is inapplicable.
- The district court denied the motion for injunctive relief, finding Plaintiffs unlikely to succeed on the merits, failing to show irreparable harm, and that the public interest favored TCNJ.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of Jacobson / standard of review | Jacobson inapplicable: COVID vaccines are "gene therapy," mandate is administrative not legislative, and consequences are severe → strict scrutiny | Jacobson controls; COVID‑19 vaccines are vaccines per CDC and statutory authority permits institutional mandates → rational‑basis review | Court: Jacobson controls; deferential review applies and TCNJ’s policy is rationally related to public health goals |
| Due process / privacy (refusal to vaccinate; surveillance/testing) | Mandate and testing/surveillance infringe fundamental right to refuse medical treatment and privacy; strict scrutiny required | Right to refuse not absolute; exemptions exist; testing and limits are rational measures to protect campus; students may go remote or transfer | Court: Plaintiffs not likely to succeed; routine testing/social‑distancing for exempt students are not constitutionally problematic |
| Standing and Eleventh Amendment immunity | Plaintiffs: exempt students suffer concrete, particularized, imminent injuries from testing and restrictions; have standing | Defendants: TCNJ is an arm of the state (Eleventh Amendment immunity) and Plaintiffs lack injury | Court: Defendants failed to carry burden to establish sovereign immunity at this stage; Plaintiffs have standing to sue |
| Equitable factors (irreparable harm, balance, public interest) | Plaintiffs: ongoing bodily‑autonomy violations and educational derailment constitute irreparable harm | Defendants: no irreparable harm; Plaintiffs delayed seeking relief; injunction would risk campus and public health | Court: Plaintiffs failed to show irreparable harm (delay/self‑inflicted); balance of harms and strong public interest in disease control weigh against injunctive relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) (establishes deference to public‑health measures and a deferential standard for compulsory vaccination laws)
- Klaassen v. Trustees of Indiana Univ., 7 F.4th 592 (7th Cir. 2021) (upheld university COVID‑19 vaccine condition of attendance and applied Jacobson‑style deference)
- Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, 141 S. Ct. 63 (2020) (discusses limits on public‑health restrictions and treats Jacobson as a rational‑basis style precedent)
- Bowers v. NCAA, 475 F.3d 524 (3d Cir. 2007) (adopts the three‑part test for Eleventh Amendment arm‑of‑the‑state analysis)
- AT&T v. Winback & Conserve Program, 42 F.3d 1421 (3d Cir. 1994) (sets forth the four‑factor preliminary injunction framework relied on by the court)