UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL THE TENTH CIRCUIT RULES FORCED VACCINES ARE NOT CONSTITUTIONAL
The Thomas Moore Society Filed Lawsuit Against Colorado University And Won Judgement
The Thomas More Society filed an appeal to a higher Court after stating a “government employer may not punish some employees, but not others, for the same activity, due only to differences in the employees’ religious beliefs and/or provide medical exemptions while denying sincerely held religious beliefs. Likewise, the government may not test the sincerity of an employee’s religious beliefs by judging whether his or her beliefs are doctrinally coherent or legitimate in the eyes of the government.”
Nor may a government employer discriminate against religion by implementing policies that exempt employees for secular reasons more readily than religious ones. All such discrimination violates the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment and the corresponding rights incorporated against the states by the Fourteenth Amendment. And when there is no plausible explanation for religious discrimination other than animus, it is subject to strict scrutiny, regardless of whether the government employer admits that its actions were motivated by hostility to certain religions.
The appeal concerns policies at the University of Colorado Anschutz Campus regarding religious exemptions from the University’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate for employees and students. The Thomas Moore Society asked the court to determine whether the employee plaintiffs in this case are entitled to preliminary injunctions against the Anschutz Campus Administration’s policies, which in turn requires several questions to be decided.
“First, we hold that an employer such as the Administration cannot moot its employees’ suits to enjoin unlawful policies by firing its employees under those policies. Therefore, we hold that at least one employee still has standing with respect to each policy at issue in this appeal.”
The University of Colorado announced in April 2021 that the University would require all employees and students to receive a COVID-19 vaccine by fall semester— with some exceptions. Rather than announce a universal policy for medical, religious, or other exemptions, the University permitted each campus to adopt its own policy and process. The Jane Doe and John Doe plaintiffs in this case (the “Does”) were each employed by or enrolled at the University’s Anschutz Campus, although some worked off-campus at other locations. The administration of the Anschutz Campus (the “Administration”) purported to allow “students and employees to attest to their exemption based on religious beliefs” using a simple form.
A revised September 1 Policy declared that “a religious exemption may be submitted based on a person’s religious belief whose teachings are opposed to all immunizations and would “only accept requests for religious exemption that cite to the official doctrine of an organized religion . . . as announced by the leaders of that religion.”
The Administration sent emails to each applicant for a religious exemption requiring the applicant to provide additional information about her religious beliefs. Before it would grant an exemption, the Administration required an applicant to “explain why [her] sincerely held religious belief, practice or observance prevents [her] from getting the vaccination. The Administration also asked each applicant to explain whether she “had an influenza or other vaccine in the past,” and to answer: “How does this differ?” At the same time medical exemptions were made available.
In response, the Administration rejected any application for a religious exemption unless an applicant could convince the Administration that her religion “teaches and all other adherents that immunizations are forbidden under all circumstances.” Accordingly, the Administration denied all of the Does religious exemptions under the September 1 Policy, and it enforced the vaccine mandate against them. For instance, on September 20, the Administration placed Jane Doe 9 on unpaid administrative leave and fired her, effective October 2, due to her “failure to comply” with the “mandatory vaccine requirement.”
After receiving threats of litigation, the Administration announced a new COVID-19 vaccine policy, effective September 24, 2021. Under the Policy, “[a] religious accommodation may be granted based on an employee’s religious beliefs,” but “will not be granted if the accommodation would unduly burden the health and safety of other Individuals, patients, or the campus community.”
Jane Doe 1 and John Doe 1 filed suit to enjoin the September 1 Policy on September 29, 2021. Additional plaintiffs joined the complaint requesting a preliminary injunction. Plaintiffs’ sincerity through questioning the legitimacy of their religious beliefs or in any way more intensely than they do into the sincerity of religious objectors on other University campuses. “They are seeking injunctive relief, damages, and attorney’s fees against the University for its unlawful discrimination and violations of fundamental constitutional rights.”
The Policies, to the extent Defendants prohibit Plaintiffs from receiving the same accommodations allowed for individuals who have actually received medical exemptions or for those on other University of Colorado campuses who present a comparable or greater risk of spreading COVID-19 than Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs requested religious exemptions under the Policies be revoked and the requests re-examined under conditions compliant with the United States and Colorado Constitutions.
The district court abused its discretion in failing to grant the Does’ motion for a preliminary injunction of the September 1 and September 24 Policies. “Under the traditional four-prong test for a preliminary injunction, the party moving for an injunction must show: (1) a likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a likely threat of irreparable harm to the movant; (3) the harm alleged by the movant outweighs any harm to the non-moving party; and (4) an injunction is in the public interest.”
The Thomas Moore Society represented a total of 17 faculty employees. In their press release “the Tenth Circuit reversed a lower court decision on May 7, 2024, issuing a 55-page ruling holding that the University of Colorado Anschutz School of Medicine’s policies refusing religious exemptions to its COVID-19 vaccination mandate were “motivated by religious animus” and unconstitutional under the First Amendment’s Religion Clauses.”
“In addition to finding religious animus, the Court found that the vaccine mandates of the University’s Anschutz Medical Campus granted “exemptions for some religions, but not others, because of differences in their religious doctrines” and granted “secular exemptions on more favorable terms than religious exemptions,” all of which was illegal.” Also the Court reaffirmed the government may not question an employee’s sincerely held religious belief under the First Amendment Principle.
As I watched the nightmare unfold in 2021 regarding vaccine mandates, it was clear to me it was unconstitutional. Furthermore what exacerbated the situation was the country unleashed an unproven novel Covid-19 injection which many adults and students were coerced into taking because of personal constraints. For the above coerced, I’m truly sorry and pray for your health.
I want to thank all the people who took the risk, refused the Covid-19 injection, and subsequently suffered financial loss but stayed the course. As time marches forward, more legal challenges are being won. Not everyone who was harmed will ever be “made whole” but the victories will benefit mankind in the future. I’m grateful for each and every “medical freedom fighter” who stayed in the fight.
Stay the course, be courageous and stand strong. God Bless You All.
Full legal document attached.https://assets-global.website-files.com/63d954d4e4ad424df7819d46/663d2b4ce54fc9e23c17b93f_220318-CU%20Does-CORRECTED%20Appellants%20opening%20brief.pdf
Nuremberg 2.0 let's get it done share & copy into a browser. File with local county & sheriff https://5smallstones.com/medical-integrity/
support clouthub.com, it's not cabal controlled🇺🇲 🙏 ❤️
The Thomas More Society is a phenomenal legal group. It fights hard to protect innocent human life, from womb to natural death.
I’ve allocated money to it in my Will.