United States’Florida Court’s judgment against mandatory vaccination is a slap on Vaccine Syndicate and corrupt Government.
The falsity and dishonesty of State Government exposed.
Indian Bar Association welcomes the judgment as being protector of fundamental rights of the citizen.
S. Court said that no such attempt to encroach the private autonomy of a citizen, is permissible under law.
Citizen has a right to refuse unwanted treatment.
Court has granted injunction against the American Government.
It will also be a tight slap upon the corrupt and dishonest officers, leaders and employers in India who are forcing the public to get vaccinated.
Florida:- In a welcoming development against the vaccine mandate, the United States’s Florida Court passed a judgment against Government and protected the petitioner.
The court observed;
“10. Florida law provides that citizens have the right to refuse unwanted medical treatments. In re Guardianship of Browning, 568 So.2d 4, 11 (Fla. 1990) (holding that “a competent person has the constitutional right to choose or refuse medical treatment, and that right extends to relevant decisions concerning one’s health”).
The City did not put on any evidence, at all, at the injunction hearing. Without any evidence, the Court is unable to consider whether the Vaccine Mandate serves a compelling interest through the least restrictive means, whether the Vaccine Mandate meets a strict scrutiny test, a rational basis test, or whether it meets any other standard. The City did not file any affidavits or declarations, did not submit any documentary evidence, and did not call any witnesses.
For the reasons set forth below, the Plaintiffs’ Emergency Petition for Injunctive Relief is GRANTED.
Application of the Right to Privacy to the Vaccine Mandate.
Federal law holds that compelled physical intrusion into the human body is an invasion of bodily integrity that implicates significant, constitutionally protected privacy interests. Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141, 143 (2013).
The City’s Vaccine Mandate requires City employees to receive a complete dose of the COVID-19 vaccines. These vaccinations are administered through intramuscular injection. The City’s Vaccine Mandate requires a compulsory vaccination procedure that can reasonably be considered a form of medical treatment and/or a medical procedure, and thus, this mandate implicates the City employees’ fundamental right to privacy.
If a challenged law implicates Florida’s right to privacy, the burden shifts to the government to prove that the law furthers a compelling state interest in the least restrictive way —also known as the “strict scrutiny” standard. Gainesville Woman Care, LLC v. State, 210 So. 3d 1243, 1252-1253 (Fla. 2017); see also, Green v. Alachua County, 2021 WL 2387983 at *3.
This “strict scrutiny” standard applies equally to constitutional challenges in instances when the government seeks to enforce laws, and also, in instances when the government employer seeks to enforce workplace policies. See City of N. Miami v. Kurtz, 653 So. 2d 1025, 1028 (Fla. 1995).
If the government fails to put on evidence of its compelling state interest, as the City failed to do here, the Court is not required to (and, in fact, cannot) make factual findings that the government has any compelling state interest. Green, 2021 WL 2387983 at *3 (“When the government fails to offer evidence to demonstrate a compelling state interest, the trial court then is absolved of having to make any finding to that effect”). In the instant case, the City failed to put on any evidence that the Vaccine Mandate serves a compelling state interest or that the Vaccine Mandate was the least restrictive means to accomplish that interest.
The City’s Vaccine Mandate facially interferes with its employees’ right to refuse unwanted medical treatments and/or procedures, implicates Plaintiffs’ fundamental right to privacy, and is “presumptively unconstitutional.” Gainesville Woman Care, LLC., 210 So. 3d at 1245; and Green, 2021 WL 2387983 at *5.
The City had an opportunity to present evidence that would show that this Vaccine Mandate was the least restrictive means to meet a compelling government interest. The City did not do that and, in fact, did not present any evidence, at all. Therefore, the Court is required to find that the City failed to meet its burden of proving that the Vaccine Mandate furthers a compelling state interest in the least restrictive way. See Gainesville Woman Care, 210 So. 3d at 1260-61; Green, 2021 WL 2387983 at *3.
Elements for an Injunction
When a law is challenged on privacy grounds, the Court must first make a single, threshold do novo inquiry whether the challenged law invades an individual’s right to privacy. Green, 2021 WL 2387983 at *2. This court has conducted that inquiry and has determined that the challenged policy invades and/or implicates the Plaintiffs’ constitutionally protected right to privacy.
In other words, having determined that the City’s Vaccine Mandate implicates Plaintiffs’ privacy rights (and with no showing of a compelling interest demonstrated by the City), this Court is required to presume that the Plaintiffs have adequately demonstrated the four elements required for this Court to order the requested injunctive relief: likelihood of success on the merits, lack of an adequate legal remedy, irreparable harm, and the public and private interests at stake. Id.”