What is the problem, you may ask? The problem is that the 9th did nothing of the sort. Let's break it down.
I won't get too much into the case's background, as it isn't pertinent to this decision, but here are some basics. The case is about LAUSD mandating COVID-19 vaccines for their employees. The case had gone through numerous twists and turns, but the Plaintiffs had alleged in pleadings that COVID-19 vaccines aren't vaccines but therapeutics that do not stop the spread of disease and, therefore, couldn't be mandated. The LAUSD, for its part, argued that they are vaccines and, therefore, could be mandated.
The district court dismissed the case using a 1905 SCOTUS decision in Jacobson v. Massachusetts. This landmark case has been used to implement vaccine mandates since. It essentially said that a vaccine could be mandated in the interest of public health, and public health concerns would supersede individual liberties.
We can discuss the validity of the decision or whether we agree with it elsewhere, but as it stands, this is the legal precedent the government has used to mandate vaccines since then. When this case was heard, a vaccine was defined as providing immunity to a disease. Using the definition as the basis for its decision, the lower court ruled (citing Jacobson as precedent) that the district could mandate the shot in the interest of public health and, therefore, dismissed the suit against LAUSD.
Here is where the confusion and misreporting came in. The 9th circuit had a duty to evaluate whether the case was dismissed erroneously. At this stage, they were not evaluating the factual nature of any of the claims made in the complaint. At this stage in a case, the Plaintiff has the presumption of truthfulness and factual accuracy. The court is required to assume that everything the Plaintiff said in their argument is true. They just accept that; they don't adjudicate it.
So, when the 9th rendered its opinion, it accepted that the Plaintiffs' argument was true at this stage of the game and said that the lower court couldn't apply Jacobson to grant the motion to dismiss. Jacobson was decided based on vaccines, not therapeutics. Here, the Plaintiffs are arguing that the jab is not a vaccine.
The court had to agree with that. Given that is what they have argued before the lower court, the 9th ruled that the lower court could not use a precedent like Jacobson because Jacobson applied to a vaccine, not a therapeutic, as the Plaintiffs alleged. The 9th returned the case to the district court and overturned the dismissal.
The 9th was very clear in its opinion. They did not make findings of fact on the validity of the claim that the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines are therapeutics; they merely accepted that what the plaintiffs alleged in their pleadings was true—because, at this stage, they have to.
In short, the 9th circuit hasn't decided on the status of the mRNA shots; it just found that the lower court erred in applying the precedent in Jacobson.
