Lawyer: Injunction against San Diego Unified's vaccine mandate will be 'short-lived'

Speaker 1: (00:00)

Just as a new variant emerges globally here, the ninth circuit court of appeals temporarily halt San Diego unified vaccine mandate today would have been the necessary deadline for students 16 and up to receive their first dose of the vaccine to be compliant for in-person learning during the spring semester. But one student said getting the vaccine would violate her Christian beliefs here to talk more about that is KPBS education reporter mg Perez mg. Welcome. Hello, you've been covering this and following this case. So first fill us in on what exactly the district's mandate required.

Speaker 2: (00:37)

The mandate required that all eligible students ages 16 and up would have to be fully vaccinated by the spring semester in order to attend in-person classes, because the only, uh, vaccine that's available to them requires two doses. They would have had to have had that first dose by today, the second dose, right before winter break on December 20th. And that, that way they would be fulfilling the mandate.

Speaker 1: (01:05)

And how did this lawsuit come about? Well,

Speaker 2: (01:08)

There is a student, uh, that decided she would not take the vaccine for religious reasons. Uh, she did not give a denomination, but she claims to be a Christian. She attends church in the local area. And again, according to her, it's against her religious beliefs to, um, to inject this vaccine. So her family got an attorney and they filed for an injunction, which would in effect stop the mandate from proceeding. And that's exactly what has happened temporarily for the moment.

Speaker 1: (01:41)

And why did the ninth circuit say it put the district's mandate on hold?

Speaker 2: (01:45)

Because there was enough evidence that this plaintiff could be harmed. Uh, had she taken the vaccine, uh, against her better judgment and also her religious beliefs. So they believed that for the moment it is worth stopping while they investigate more. And, uh, while we wait for another, uh, decision from them

Speaker 1: (02:05)

And why does the district say it does not offer religious exemptions to students?

Speaker 2: (02:10)

Quite frankly, the district does not want that to be abused by families who would just simply say, you know, it goes against my religion. There is a process that somebody would have to go through a teacher or staff member, but again, that does not apply to students.

Speaker 1: (02:28)

And part of the problem is that they allow other types of exemptions.

Speaker 2: (02:32)

Yes, there are medical exemptions. There are exemptions for, uh, students who have been identified as homeless. There are also exemptions for students who qualify as being students with special needs. So the argument from the attorney side is why, why do you allow that? But you will not allow this for my client

Speaker 1: (02:52)

And mg to talk more about why this student feels the vaccine, um, is in conflict with her religious

Speaker 2: (03:00)

Beliefs. She does believe that this vaccine was put together with the use of fetus cells from aborted fetuses, back in the seventies and eighties. And that's the reason she says it goes against her Christian beliefs,

Speaker 1: (03:17)

But does the vaccine contain aborted fetal cells?

Speaker 2: (03:21)

It does not. Um, there is some history of fetal cell, uh, use in the research, but it does not include them.

Speaker 1: (03:30)

And you spoke to the attorneys who represent the Scripps ranch, high school student. What did they say about the mandate being put on hold?

Speaker 2: (03:38)

The attorney I spoke to was very clear and he does believe that this is a case that is discriminatory, uh, to people who are of faith. And here's what he said,

Speaker 3: (03:49)

Different regulations are not neutral and generally applicable. And they therefore trigger strict scrutiny, which is the most demanding test and constitutional law when they treat any comparable, secular activity better than religious exercise. And basically, um, it's, self-evident here that they're treating a whole host of secular exemptions better than religious exemptions.

Speaker 1: (04:12)

All right. So what has the district said about the mandate being put on hold?

Speaker 2: (04:17)

Usually the district has no comment when it has to do with pending legal action, but I did reach out to, uh, the president of the, uh, San Diego unified board of education, Richard Berrera. And he said the mandate goes into effect when the second semester starts in late January students, 16 and older, who have not had two vaccines in time to build full immunity. That takes about two weeks and who have not received a medical exemption will not be allowed to attend school in person. And we expect the full night circuit to rule soon. So basically he is saying, uh, they're not budging. The mandate officially goes into effect, uh, in late January. But of course, in order to meet that mandate shots will have had to have been taken by this week and by December.

Speaker 1: (05:06)

So obviously this isn't the end of the case. What's next?

Speaker 2: (05:10)

Hurry up and wait, Jane, I asked the attorney today. I said, when do you expect a full ruling from the appeals court? And he said, it could be this week. It could be sometime in December, it's really up to them to decide. So we went,

Speaker 1: (05:25)

Um, I've been speaking with KPBS education, reporter mg Perez mg. Thank you so much for joining us.

Speaker 2: (05:32)

Thank you.