Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2026 Poal.co

681

direct link (x.com)

They said that as long as authorities say a mandate is for “public health,” then the courts shouldn’t question them.

…

This means that the Ninth Circuit’s egregious ruling—that it doesn’t matter whether a shot stops transmission or infection, all that matters is that a state official could have believed a shot would help individual members of the public—will stand.

[direct link](https://x.com/theHFDF/status/2056509036103958977) > They said that as long as authorities say a mandate is for “public health,” > then the courts shouldn’t question them. > > … > > This means that the Ninth Circuit’s egregious ruling—that it doesn’t matter > whether a shot stops transmission or infection, all that matters is that a > state official could have believed a shot would help individual members of > the public—will stand.
You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (14).
[–] • 1 pt

That’s right. SCOTUS upheld a ruling that only applies in the jurisdiction of the 9th Circuit Court. Other circuits can still make different rulings. The 9th Circuit is the largest circuit in the USA though, and this ruling will influence the other circuits.

I don’t care if it’s a mandate on everyone, on all students and staff at an institution, or only on government employees. Forcing people to undergo any kind of medical procedure is horrible.

[–] • 1 pt

I agree the mandate is wrong, period, full stop. My point was, courts have ruled that employers do have rights, and for this lawsuit, the government was functioning as an employer. That weakens the case in my lay opinion.