91 F.4th 1296
9th Cir.2024Background
- Following the onset of COVID-19, Oregon Governor Kate Brown and OHA Director Patrick Allen set vaccine rollout priorities, placing inmates below correctional officers.
- Inmates (Plaintiffs) who contracted COVID-19 in prison sued under § 1983, alleging that the vaccine rollout violated their constitutional rights (Eighth Amendment).
- The Oregon Health Authority’s phased vaccine allocation gave earlier priority to certain groups (including correctional officers) but not all adults in custody (AICs).
- Plaintiffs initially sought injunctive relief; after the district court’s order, inmates were prioritized, and the claim for injunctive relief was dismissed as moot once vaccines became widely available. Damages claims remained.
- Defendants moved to dismiss the damages claim, invoking immunity under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act. The district court denied the motions, and Defendants appealed.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed whether PREP Act immunity applied and whether it barred Plaintiffs’ § 1983 claim.
Issues
| Issue | Maney (Plaintiff) Argument | Brown/Allen (Defendant) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does PREP Act immunity bar damages claims for vaccine prioritization? | PREP Act doesn’t extend to policy-level prioritization. | PREP Act immunity covers both administration and prioritization of covered countermeasures. | PREP Act bars these damages claims. |
| Does PREP Act immunity cover policy-level vaccination decisions? | Policy-level actions aren't protected by PREP Act immunity. | PREP Act and HHS Declaration explicitly include policy-level prioritization decisions. | Policy-level decisions are covered by PREP Act immunity. |
| Does PREP Act immunity preclude § 1983 constitutional claims? | PREP Act does not expressly bar § 1983 constitutional claims. | PREP Act’s language covers all claims under federal law related to countermeasure administration, including § 1983 claims. | PREP Act expressly bars § 1983 constitutional claims for covered losses. |
| Can courts recognize § 1983 damages claims despite PREP immunity? | Courts retain power to grant damages for constitutional harm. | Congressional immunity under PREP Act overrides such remedies. | Courts cannot override PREP Act’s express immunity provision. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hampton v. California, 83 F.4th 754 (9th Cir. 2023) (explains the scope and purpose of PREP Act immunity)
- Stilwell v. City of Williams, 831 F.3d 1234 (9th Cir. 2016) (§ 1983 as a vehicle to vindicate constitutional rights)
- Price v. City of Stockton, 390 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir. 2004) (standards for finding Congressional intent to bar § 1983 claims)
- Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137 (1979) (nature of § 1983 claims)
- Smith v. Robinson, 468 U.S. 992 (1984) (congressional ability to foreclose § 1983 remedies)