Federal appeals court appears wary of tossing Indiana University's vaccine mandate

  • 1/11/2022
  • 00:00
  • 8
  • 0
  • 0
news-picture

(Reuters) - The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday indicated some skepticism over a claim that Indiana University"s COVID-19 vaccination requirement for students and faculty was unlawful and should be blocked. A three-judge panel of the Chicago-based 7th Circuit heard arguments for about 30 minutes by video, a measure implemented in response to the new regional and national surge in COVID-19 infections. "We"re now about a year into vaccines being administered. Has any court anywhere in the United States held that a state or local vaccine mandate violates any provision of the United States Constitution?" Circuit Judge Michael Scudder asked at one point at Tuesday"s hearing. Hundreds of universities and law schools have implemented vaccination requirements in response to the coronavirus pandemic. The 7th Circuit panel in August denied an emergency bid from a group of students to block the university"s vaccination rule. Tuesday"s arguments on the merits of the school"s vaccination requirement come as the U.S. Supreme Court separately weighs Biden administration COVID-19 vaccination-or-testing mandates for large employers and healthcare workers. The university"s policy allows medical and religious exemptions, and a federal judge in Indiana in July declined to block the rule. The plaintiffs are eight current or former Indiana University students challenging the rule. Attorney James Bopp Jr in Terre Haute, Indiana, who argued for the plaintiffs, told Reuters that the school has claimed authority that is "quite extraordinary." Bopp argued in court that the university"s mandate was "not a public health measure. It doesn"t prevent infection and transmission." Students should have a right, he said, to refuse medical treatment. Brian Paul of Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath, who represented the university, did not immediately return a message seeking comment. Paul told the court that the university considered "a vast amount of data in formulating its policy. This was by any reasonable measure" the result of a deliberative process. Indiana University, Paul said in court, "could reasonably believe that the potential enormous benefit of requiring vaccination dwarfs the miniscule risk." The court directed Bopp to file more information by affidavit about whether one plaintiff still plans to attend Indiana University if the vaccination mandate is lifted. Circuit Judge Frank Easterbrook suggested the case could be dismissed as moot if the court is not provided current information for the record. The case is Klaassen v. Trustees of Indiana University, 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 21-2326. For the plaintiffs: James Bopp of the Bopp Law Firm For Indiana University: Brian Paul and Anne Ricchiuto of Faegre Drinker

مشاركة :