“A Great Win for Children and the Rule of Law”

In a November 22 ruling, Justice William Dato of California’s Fourth District Court of Appeal found that state law preempts San Diego Unified School District’s (SDUSD) effort to impose a COVID-19 vaccine mandate. Last December a trial court ruled against SDUSD, and they appealed the decision. The new ruling involves two joined cases, including Let Them Choose, etc. v. SDUSD, and this plaintiff is an offshoot of the nonprofit group Let Them Breathe. According to the Los Angeles Times, plaintiff’s attorney Lee Andelin said, “This is a great win for children and the rule of law and ensures consistency statewide.” The paper also reports that SDUSD was one of the few in that state to impose a COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The mandate would have disallowed any personal belief exemption, and in May it was put on pause until July 2023 or later. Making a good point, the newspaper notes that, “Since the spring, there has been little discussion of student vaccine mandates in California as public tolerance for COVID-19 restrictions and alarm about the virus have dwindled.”

Trial Court Had Rejected SDUSD’s “Vaccination Roadmap”

Turning to Dato’s decision, he notes that the trial court had determined that there is a “statewide standard for school vaccination,” which leaves “no room for each of the over 1,000 individual school districts to impose a patchwork of additional vaccine mandates.” In September 2021 SDUSD adopted a “Vaccination Roadmap” mandating that youth 16 or older receive a COVID-19 vaccine for either in-person attendance or extracurricular activities. This Roadmap allowed for medical, but not religious or personal belief, exemptions.

Mootness Argument Shut Down: SDUSD Five Months Late

One argument made by SDUSD during the oral arguments was that the case had become “moot” or no longer relevant in that they had put off implementation of the mandate to July 2023 or beyond. They also said mootness was shown as to one plaintiff as he was due to graduate high school around the time the mandate kicks in. Dato’s response was that “For obvious considerations of fairness, we ordinarily do not consider points made for the first time at oral argument… and we decline to do so here. The District could have raised this issue at least five months ago, either by motion or in its reply brief in response to an argument by Let Them Choose that the postponement did not make the case moot. It did neither.”

Trial Court Determined State Law Preempts SDUSD’s Mandate

In late 2021, Let Them Choose and the anonymous “S.V.” filed complaints challenging SDUSD’s mandate, and the cases were joined for trial. The trial judge found that state law preempts the vaccine requirement: “I think that the state…has fully occupied this field, there’s a statewide standard, and a local school district simply doesn’t have the authority to do something inconsistent with the statewide standard.”

Legislature Wanted Consistent Policies

The state-wide law says that schools, “shall not” admit kids who have not been vaccinated for, “polio, diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, hepatitis B, haemophilus influenzae type B (HIB), measles, mumps, rubella, and chicken pox.” Each vaccine was added based on action by the state legislature after due consideration of public health factors. This law enacted in 1995 allowed for a broad personal belief exemption, but in 2015 this was removed from the law, as to the ten required immunizations. That year the lawmakers also looked at whether vaccines should be imposed by individual school districts or statewide. A legislative analysis noted that, “To provide a statewide standard [ ] allows for a consistent policy that can be publicized in a uniform manner, so districts and educational efforts may be enacted with best practices for each district…Further in consultation with various health officers, they believe a statewide policy provides them the tools to protect all children equally from an outbreak.” Judge Dato pointed out that a personal belief exemption would be required if the state added a mandate for another vaccine to existing law.

Roadmap Derailed

Dato reviewed the law on preemption, the idea that if a state law “covers the field” on a particular topic, local jurisdictions are preempted from making laws on this subject, whether such laws contradict or merely “enter” to area occupied by state law. Citing prior cases, contradiction occurs when the local law “directly requires what the state statute forbids or prohibits what the state enactment demands…” A local law “enters” a preempted field when, “the Legislature ‘expressly manifest[s]’ its intent to occupy the legal area or when the Legislature ‘impliedly’ occupies the field.” Dato rules that the “Roadmap” is preempted on both grounds.  

Nine Arguments Rejected

Justice Dato rejected numerous arguments from SDUSD. First, he said that their citation of a “presumption against preemption” is inapplicable; next Marsy’s Law’s (California victim bill of rights) guarantee of safe schools only applies to safety from “criminality;” the duty to protect students from third-party harms does not include vaccinations; the law mandating that SDUSD “give diligent case to the health…of pupils…” applies to health issues other than immunization; the duty to cooperate with local health officers only allows for administration of listed vaccines; SDUSD’s reliance on the statute allowing use of school funds for vaccination only relates to parents and guardians who consent; cited Education Code sections and the state Constitution granting school districts wide authority to “initiate programs designed to meet local needs” does not apply when preemption is present; the 64-year old Attorney General’s Opinion cited by SDUSD only related to when a school district could pay for immunizations; and last Dato shot down the argument that the mandate is not a mandate because there is an “option” to do independent study.