571 F.Supp.3d 901
N.D. Ill.2021Background
- Governor Pritzker’s EO 2021-22 (Sept. 3, 2021) required covered health‑care workers to be fully vaccinated or submit to weekly testing by Sept. 19, 2021; exemptions for medical contraindication or sincere religious belief require weekly testing.
- City of Chicago policy required all City employees to be fully vaccinated by Oct. 15, 2021 or submit to biweekly testing, with testing as an alternative ending Dec. 31, 2021 and vaccination thereafter becoming a condition of employment.
- Plaintiffs are Chicago municipal employees (Fire, Water, Transportation) who brought claims seeking a TRO to enjoin enforcement of the Governor’s EO and the City policy; some applicants sought religious exemptions (five denials; others pending) and no plaintiff had been disciplined as of the TRO hearing.
- Plaintiffs asserted substantive and procedural due process claims, Free Exercise Clause claims, and claims under the Illinois Healthcare Right of Conscience Act (HCRCA).
- Defendants relied on public‑health evidence (CDC guidance, peer‑reviewed studies, and declarations from public health officials) and Seventh Circuit authority upholding vaccine mandates; Governor invoked sovereign immunity for state‑law claims.
- The court denied the TRO, finding plaintiffs unlikely to succeed on the merits and that the public interest and balance of equities weighed against emergency relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Substantive due process: right to refuse vaccination / bodily autonomy | Vaccine/test mandates violate a fundamental right to bodily autonomy and to refuse medical treatment, requiring strict scrutiny. | No fundamental right exists here; Jacobson and Klaassen permit vaccine mandates; at most rational‑basis review applies and public‑health rationale suffices. | Court: plaintiffs unlikely to succeed; no fundamental right recognized; policies survive rational‑basis review. |
| Procedural due process: authority & procedures (City and Governor) | Mayor acted ultra vires and altered employment contracts without required process; Governor exceeded emergency powers under EMAA. | Chicago Municipal Code authorizes mayoral policymaking; collective‑bargaining and grievance procedures satisfy process; Eleventh Amendment bars state‑law claims against Governor; federal courts cannot enforce state procedural requirements. | Court: claims unlikely to succeed; City action not ultra vires; Governor claims barred by sovereign immunity; procedural due process relief not warranted. |
| Free Exercise: religious exemptions and implementation | Mandates burden sincerely held religious beliefs; City improperly administered or narrowed exemptions. | Policies are neutral and generally applicable and include a religious‑exemption procedure; denials to date resulted from inadequate individualized submissions. | Court: rational‑basis review applies (per Klaassen); no facial Free Exercise violation shown; particularized as‑applied challenges may be available but not shown here. |
| HCRCA (Illinois statute protecting conscience) | Mandates discriminate against persons refusing vaccination in conscience and violate HCRCA. | City policy contains a religious/conscience exemption consistent with HCRCA; Governor immune from suit under Eleventh Amendment. | Court: HCRCA claims against Governor barred by sovereign immunity; claims against City unlikely to succeed on TRO because exemption mechanism exists. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (U.S. 1905) (upholding state authority to impose vaccination requirements for public health)
- Klaassen v. Trustees of Indiana Univ., 7 F.4th 592 (7th Cir. 2021) (Seventh Circuit rejected substantive due process and Free Exercise challenges to COVID‑19 vaccine mandates)
- Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (U.S. 1973) (right to privacy/abortion precedent cited by plaintiffs for bodily autonomy arguments)
- Planned Parenthood of Se. Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (U.S. 1992) (privacy/abortion framework referenced for substantive‑due‑process analysis)
- Employment Div., Dep’t of Human Resources v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (U.S. 1990) (neutral laws of general applicability receive rational‑basis review under Free Exercise doctrine)
- Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7 (U.S. 2008) (standard for preliminary injunction/TRO requires likely irreparable harm)
- Pennhurst State School & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (U.S. 1984) (Eleventh Amendment bars private suits to enforce state law against state officials)
- Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (U.S. 1908) (allows suits to enjoin state officials for violations of federal law)