103 F.4th 74
1st Cir.2024Background
- Dr. Stephen T. Skoly, a Rhode Island dentist and oral surgeon, publicly declared he would not comply with a state COVID-19 vaccine mandate for healthcare providers effective October 2021.
- The Rhode Island Department of Health (RI DOH) issued a Notice of Violation and Compliance Order after his noncompliance, temporarily barring him from in-person practice.
- Skoly sought a hearing, but was denied permission to continue practicing pending appeal; he closed his practice rather than comply or limit his duties.
- The mandate was eventually revoked, the Notice dismissed, and Skoly returned to practice, mooting his claims for injunctive relief.
- Skoly filed suit for damages against state officials for alleged violations of due process, equal protection, and the First Amendment, focusing on the vaccine mandate’s enforcement against him after the policies had changed.
- The district court dismissed his claims, ruling defendants immune from suit, and Skoly appealed only on damages claims against state officials in their individual capacities.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Equal Protection | Treated worse than unvaccinated, masked, medically exempt, or infected workers | Treatment had rational basis; Skoly not similarly situated; policy followed CDC | Dismissed: No plausible comparator or irrational treatment |
| Due Process | Deprived of liberty/property interests (practice, bodily autonomy) w/o process | Action followed established medical criteria and process, no hearing needed | Dismissed: No clearly established right violated; immunity |
| First Amendment Retaliation | Enforcement was retaliation for publicly stating intent not to comply | Focused on evident violators, not viewpoint; policy was neutrally enforced | Dismissed: Enforcement was permissible passive policy |
| Posting Notice Online as Retaliation | Prolonged posting was further retaliation | Posting was government speech, no duty to remove swiftly | Dismissed: Not a cognizable retaliation claim; not pled |
Key Cases Cited
- Goldstein v. Galvin, 719 F.3d 16 (1st Cir. 2013) (absolute immunity for officials performing prosecutorial functions in administrative proceedings)
- Wayte v. United States, 470 U.S. 598 (1985) (passive enforcement based on public violations is permissible under First Amendment)
- Minnesota v. Clover Leaf Creamery Co., 449 U.S. 456 (1981) (rational basis review suffices for equal protection/due process)
- Vill. of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562 (2000) (class-of-one equal protection claims require high degree of similarity)
- Est. of Rahim v. Doe, 51 F.4th 402 (1st Cir. 2022) (qualified immunity shields officials when law is not clearly established)