567 F.Supp.3d 1213
D. Or.2021Background
- Plaintiffs are several Oregon (and one Idaho-resident) state, healthcare, education, and corrections employees who previously contracted COVID-19 and refuse COVID-19 vaccination; they challenged Oregon Governor’s Executive Order 21-29 and OHA rules OAR 333-019-1010 and -1030.
- The mandates required full vaccination by October 18, 2021 for executive-branch employees, healthcare staff, and school staff/volunteers, with procedures for medical and sincerely held religious exceptions.
- The state record (Dr. Sutton) describes a Delta-driven surge, strained hospital capacity, vaccines’ effectiveness (including against Delta), and uncertainty/variability in natural (infection-based) immunity.
- Plaintiffs sought a temporary restraining order (TRO) and injunction pending appeal, asserting violations of procedural and substantive due process (bodily integrity/privacy) and equal protection for treating infection-acquired immunity differently from vaccination.
- The district court applied the Winter framework (and Ninth Circuit sliding-scale alternative), held that Jacobson and subsequent authority control, applied rational-basis review, found no likelihood of success on the merits, no demonstrated irreparable harm for most plaintiffs, and that the public interest and balance of equities favored Oregon. The TRO and injunction-pending-appeal were denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural due process (challenge to promulgation/enforcement of broadly applicable vaccine rules) | Mandates deprive property/liberty without adequate process; plaintiffs lacked individualized hearing before enforcement. | Rules are generally applicable legislation; adequate process exists via the rulemaking and exception procedures; judicial review after promulgation is proper. | Court: No likelihood of success; mandates are laws of general applicability and exception/appeal processes suffice; procedural due process fails. |
| Substantive due process (bodily integrity/right to refuse vaccination) | Mandates invade bodily integrity; strict scrutiny required because mandates deny exceptions for infection-based immunity. | No fundamental right to refuse vaccination; Jacobson controls; rational-basis review applies and mandates are rationally related to public-health goals. | Court: No fundamental right; Jacobson governs; rational-basis review applies; mandates survive as rationally related to legitimate state interest. |
| Equal protection (distinct treatment of infection-based vs. vaccine-induced immunity) | Classifications treating infection-acquired immunity differently from vaccine immunity are arbitrary and require heightened scrutiny. | No suspect class or fundamental right implicated; classification survives rational-basis review as plausibly tied to public-health evidence about immunity durability. | Court: Rational-basis review applies; classification is rationally related to legitimate public-health objectives; equal-protection claim fails. |
| TRO factors (irreparable harm; balance of equities; public interest) | Loss of employment and constitutional violations constitute irreparable harm; equities favor plaintiffs. | Many plaintiffs have pending or granted exceptions; termination risk speculative; public interest and healthcare capacity favor mandates. | Court: Plaintiffs did not show likely irreparable harm (most speculative or resolved); balance of equities and public interest strongly favor Oregon; TRO and injunction denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) (upholds state vaccination authority; foundational precedent denying a fundamental right to refuse mandatory vaccination)
- Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (establishes four-factor test for preliminary injunction/TRO)
- Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2011) (recognizes Ninth Circuit sliding-scale “serious questions” alternative test for injunctions)
- City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, 473 U.S. 432 (1985) (rational-basis review standard for equal protection analysis)
- Bi-Metallic Investment Co. v. State Board of Equalization, 239 U.S. 441 (1915) (rules of general applicability do not require individualized due-process hearings)
- Lopez v. Brewer, 680 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 2012) (plaintiff must make a clear showing on injunction factors)