Will SCOTUS Decide to Hear Vaccine Mandate Case This Year?



For the First Time in Over a Hundred Years
SCOTUS Receives a Vaccine Mandate Petition

Patricia Finn, The Good Health Lawyer from Rockland County, NY has worked with Natural Solutions Foundation and the health freedom movement for decades.  We are therefore pleased to announce that she has just filed a ground-breaking Petition for Certiorari with the US Supreme Court. The Petition was filed on 5 October 2020.

While other lawyers floundered, failing to stop New York’s abolition of all religious vaccine exemptions and most medical vaccine exemptions Counsel Finn achieved a preliminary injunction protecting the doctor-patient “learned intermediary” relationship. That case, though very important and a landmark case in its own right, is not the case going to the Supreme Court, yet.

The case going to SCOTUS is the case of Jane Doe vs Merck.  This case challenges the failure of the US Government and Merck, the major vaccine drug company, to disclose the “unavoidably unsafe” nature of childhood vaccines, which lead to horrendous injuries to Baby Doe.  That happened twenty years ago.  Jane Doe and her husband can no longer care for their severely autistic now-grown son.  He must be placed in a group home for proper care. But, under New York’s draconian vaccine laws, he must be vaccinated yet again and can have no medical exemption.  He is forced to “play roulette” with more “unavoidably unsafe” vaccines.

New York’s cruel law is contrary to US Supreme Court precedents, including the 1905 case of Jacobson vs Massachusetts, often cited by the vaccine-forcers as legal authority for unlimited “police power” to mandate vaccines. That case, though, when carefully read, does no such thing. Rather it proclaims that the Courts are “not without power” to intervene when vaccines could harm a person. The Petition seeks to enforce the Jacobson precedent.

As Counsel Finn explains in the Petition, the main question presented to the high court is:

“Should Courts extend the precedents of Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905), for the legal requirement that a vaccine licensed by FDA be necessary,’ ‘harm-avoidant,’ ‘proportional’ and ‘non-discriminatory’ requiring individualized exemptions for those eligible and not suitable for vaccinations?”

In laymen’s terms, the question for the Supreme Court is whether it should enforce its precedents that tell us (in the 2013 case of Missouri vs McNeely, for example):

Even a “…diminished expectation of privacy does not diminish the… privacy interest in preventing a government agent from piercing the… skin. And though a blood test conducted in a medical setting by trained personnel is less intrusive than other bodily invasions, this Court has never retreated from its recognition that any compelled intrusion into the human body implicates significant, constitutionally protected privacy interests…” [Emphasis added.]

Because this case involves conflicting decisions on the liability of Merck from two separate Federal appeals courts, involving the Jacobson case, SCOTUS may very well accept the Petition and allow the case to proceed to a full hearing before the Court.

This would bring the issue of vaccine mandates back before the Court for the first time in over a hundred years.

Counsel Finn advances a number of powerful arguments.

You can read the Petition itself here or below SCOTUS for Publishing D.

You know it takes significant funding to pursue a case like this.  The Petitioners are without funds.  We urge you to go to the Institute for Health Research’s Fundly Crowd Funding page to support Counsel Finn’s efforts. Over a hundred health freedom advocates have done so already, but we need the support of thousands to make sure this powerful message is heard by the Supreme Court.

Act here now:  https://fundly.com/support-natural-therapies

Ralph Fucetola JD
IHR President

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *