Sign Up

NCLA Site Search

Cases

Rodden v. Fauci

CASE SUMMARY

The Biden administration issued a September 2021 Executive Order proclaiming it was “necessary to require COVID-19 vaccination for all Federal employees” to halt the spread of the disease. NCLA argues the Federal Vaccine Mandate undermined James Rodden and other Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights to bodily integrity and to decline medical treatment, and their statutory right to withhold informed consent. It conditioned their employment on willingness to take a vaccine that was medically unnecessary for them given their existing antibody levels. Their proof of antibodies demonstrated sufficient natural immunity to protect their co-workers as well or better than approved COVID-19 vaccines. These Plaintiffs all possessed medically confirmed naturally acquired immunity. 

The federal government did not consider employees fully vaccinated until two weeks after receiving a full one-or-two-shot series. Those who did not comply with the November 8, 2021 vaccination deadline faced potential disciplinary action, including employment termination. Several experts attested that it was medically unnecessary for these individuals to undergo vaccination at that point. Though the COVID-19 vaccines appear relatively safe at a population level, they still carry a risk of side effects, including severe adverse reactions and even death in rare cases.  

Given naturally acquired immunity, the Federal Defendants could not establish a compelling governmental interest in overriding Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights and personal autonomy by making their continued employment contingent upon COVID-19 vaccination. The Federal Vaccine Mandate also violated federal law allowing the government to authorize drugs that have not yet received full FDA approval and make them available on a strictly voluntary basis. That statute notes patients’ right to informed consent and to refuse administration of an EUA drug. The Safer Federal Workforce Task Force, which included Dr. Anthony Fauci, turned a permissive procedure to get possibly helpful drugs on the market in a crisis into an unlawful mandate. 

OUR TEAM

Sheng Li
Litigation Counsel
Jenin Younes
Litigation Counsel
John J. Vecchione
Senior Litigation Counsel

RELEVANT MATERIALS

NCLA FILINGS

Reply in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Lift Stay, Certify Class, Grant Summary Judgment, and Issue Permanent Injunction

June 23, 2023 | Read More

Defendants’ Response in Opposition To Plaintiff's Motion to Lift Stay and for Summary Judgement

June 16, 2023 | Read More

Plaintiffs’ Opposed Motion to Lift Stay, Certify Class, Grant Summary Judgment, and Issue Permanent Injunction

May 31, 2023 | Read More

Order Granting Defendants’ Motion to Stay

February 23, 2022 | Read More

Defendants’ Motion to Stay

February 10, 2022 | Read More

SEE 30 FILINGS
PRESS RELEASES

NCLA & TPPF File Class-Action Suit for Naturally Immune Fed. Employees Against Covid Vaccine Mandate

November 5, 2021 | Read More

IN THE MEDIA

Fauci Files: Twitter's Courting of COVID-19 Vax Censorship

Newsmax

May 15, 2023

CASE HIGHLIGHTS

RELATED CASES
  • Adir International v. Starr Indemnity and Liability Company

    Due Process Violations

    The due process of law guarantees a right to be held to account only through the processes of an impartial court—something administrative tribunals violate every day.

    Case Closed -

    Agencies: California

    View Case
  • American Home Furnishings Alliance, et al. v. U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission

    Due Process Violations

    The due process of law guarantees a right to be held to account only through the processes of an impartial court—something administrative tribunals violate every day.

    Scope of Authority / Nondelegation

    The structure of the Constitution allows only Congress to legislate, only the Executive to enforce laws, and only the Judiciary to decide cases. But the Administrative State evades the Constitution’s avenues of governance when executive agencies issue regulations without statutory authorization from Congress.

    Case Closed - June 30, 2023

    Agencies: Consumer Product Safety Commission

    View Case
  • American Honda Motor Co., Inc. v. Walther, Dir., and Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration

    Judicial Deference

    Deference doctrines require judges to defer to an administrative agency’s fact finding, or its interpretation of statutes and regulations. Thus, judges surrender their independent judgment and, where the government is a party, must exhibit systematic bias in the government’s favor, which denies due process of law to the other litigant.

    Due Process Violations

    The due process of law guarantees a right to be held to account only through the processes of an impartial court—something administrative tribunals violate every day.

    Case Closed -

    Agencies: Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration

    View Case
  • American Hospital Association, et al. v. Xavier Becerra, et al.

    Judicial Deference

    Deference doctrines require judges to defer to an administrative agency’s fact finding, or its interpretation of statutes and regulations. Thus, judges surrender their independent judgment and, where the government is a party, must exhibit systematic bias in the government’s favor, which denies due process of law to the other litigant.

    Due Process Violations

    The due process of law guarantees a right to be held to account only through the processes of an impartial court—something administrative tribunals violate every day.

    Scope of Authority / Nondelegation

    The structure of the Constitution allows only Congress to legislate, only the Executive to enforce laws, and only the Judiciary to decide cases. But the Administrative State evades the Constitution’s avenues of governance when executive agencies issue regulations without statutory authorization from Congress.

    Case Closed - June 15, 2022

    Agencies: Department of Health and Human Services

    View Case
  • American Securities Association and Citadel Securities LLC v. United States Securities and Exchange Commission

    Due Process Violations

    The due process of law guarantees a right to be held to account only through the processes of an impartial court—something administrative tribunals violate every day.

    Scope of Authority / Nondelegation

    The structure of the Constitution allows only Congress to legislate, only the Executive to enforce laws, and only the Judiciary to decide cases. But the Administrative State evades the Constitution’s avenues of governance when executive agencies issue regulations without statutory authorization from Congress.

    Administrative Speech Controls

    The Administrative State tries to squelch speech, especially through licensing, speech bans, and speech mandates. Licensing requires one to get the government’s permission prior to speaking. Nothing was more clearly forbidden by the First Amendment than prior restraints on speech, but such controls are now commonplace.

    Unreasonable Searches

    The Fourth Amendment forbids warrantless searches and seizures of information, yet the Administrative State violates this right to privacy through administrative subpoenas and warrants, automated information collection devices, civil investigative demands, and “voluntary” requests for information.

    Conditions on Spending

    Administrative agencies use unconstitutional conditions on spending to regulate the conduct of grantees. Rather than rule through law, the government simply purchases submission.

    Case Active - February 15, 2024

    Agencies: Securities and Exchange Commission

    View Case
  • AMG Capital Management, LLC v. FTC and FTC v. Credit Bureau Center, LLC

    Due Process Violations

    The due process of law guarantees a right to be held to account only through the processes of an impartial court—something administrative tribunals violate every day.

    Scope of Authority / Nondelegation

    The structure of the Constitution allows only Congress to legislate, only the Executive to enforce laws, and only the Judiciary to decide cases. But the Administrative State evades the Constitution’s avenues of governance when executive agencies issue regulations without statutory authorization from Congress.

    Case Closed -

    Agencies: Federal Trade Commission

    View Case

SHARE THIS CASE

Enter your email address above to be notified whenever we post a new document to this case.