State Bar Association Tables Vote on Mandatory COVID-19 Vaccinations
The NYSBA's governing board said it needed more time to review all of the recommendations made in a voluminous 84-page report that covered various health law-related topics, including the issue of whether it should be mandatory for all Americans to take a COVID-19 vaccine.
June 22, 2020 at 06:03 PM
5 minute read
The New York State Bar Association's governing board has tabled until Nov. 7 a vote on whether the full bar association will adopt a controversial recent recommendation by its Health Law Section that it should be mandatory for all Americans to undergo COVID-19 vaccination, when a vaccine becomes available, even if they object to it for "religious, philosophical or personal reasons."
The bar association's governing board, whose vote on whether to adopt the recommendation will speak on behalf of the entire 70,000-member organization, was to vote on the issue earlier this month, according to a bar association spokeswoman.
But the governing board decided to table the vote as part of a broader decision the board made to table its vote on all of the recommended measures laid out in the group's 84-page report issued in May, said the spokeswoman, Susan DeSantis.
According to DeSantis, the governing board said that it needed more time to review all of the recommendations made in a voluminous report that covered various health law-related topics.
On pages 60-63 of the report, which focused the "unique" legal and ethical issues brought forward by the global coronavirus pandemic, the Health Law Section cited a robust collection of case law to back up its vaccine-taking recommendation and wrote that "some Americans may push back on the COVID-19 vaccination for religious, philosophical or personal reasons" but "for the sake of public health, mandatory vaccinations for COVID-19 should be required in the United States as soon as it is available."
"Mandatory vaccinations are supported by the authority of the state police power when the vaccinations are necessary to protect the health of the community," the group wrote in the report, while citing the landmark 1905 U.S. Supreme Court decision Jacobson v. Massachusetts.
Pointing to several constitutional law-focused cases, including the Supreme Court's 1990 decision in Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dept. of Health, the group also said that "[c]onstitutional challenges under the religious freedom clause under the First Amendment and under the substantive due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment have failed, when the individual interests are not strong enough to outweigh the public benefit."
The recommendation from the Health Law Section has generated a lot of controversy among anti-vaccine groups and among some lawyers who represent people injured by vaccines. For example, a May 28 New York Law Journal article on the health law task force's recommendation generated a firestorm of response on Facebook. Independent-from-government-minded groups across the country, including some on the right of the political spectrum, along with anti-vaccination groups shared the article in droves and group followers commented, sometimes by the hundreds. The comments were often laced with concern or vitriol. Many commentators said that they would protest a mandatory vaccination. Others said that no government will be able to make them take a coronavirus vaccine that they say isn't necessary and could be dangerous.
Meanwhile, some attorneys who represent clients either injured by vaccines or who've refused to take vaccines despite orders to do so, as well as with some law professors, have challenged the bar association group's interpretation of constitutional-based case law regarding state police powers. In addition to making those arguments during interviews with the Law Journal in early June, the attorneys and law professors also also distinguishing between how certain pertinent case law should be applied to adults versus children, and they laid out some policy-based arguments against the idea of making it mandatory for Americans to take a COVID-19 vaccine.
In taking on the Health Law Section's arguments stating that a range of cases support a vaccine-taking mandate when "individual interests are not strong enough to outweigh the public benefit," vaccine-injury lawyer Patricia Finn wrote, for example, that "while previous constitutional challenges under the religious freedom clause under the First Amendment and under the substantive due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment have failed, none of the cases cited by [the] NYSBA [Health Law Section's task force] address [the] failed safety and efficacy of the mandated vaccinations, or the requisite necessity and 'lack of a public emergency' required by" Jacobson.
The Health Law Section then responded to Finn's and others' criticisms. The group's task force chairwoman said in June that its May-issued "report rests on a body of well-established law," and she underscored—multiple times—that her group's report only "suggests the need for mandatory vaccination, when a safe and effective vaccine becomes available."
In addition, the task force, on June 12, added some language to the resolution laying out its vaccine-taking recommendation.
At the top of Resolution #3 on "Vaccine Mandate Recommendation," the health law group placed the following language, shown in italics, to an introduction of the measure:
After testing and as supported by scientific evidence, once a safe and effective COVID-19 becomes available, the NYSBA Health Law Section recommends; …
It was at its June 13 meeting that the governing board decided to table its vote on the task force report until Nov. 7, which is its next schedule meeting. Besides the vaccine-taking measure, the board will vote on other measures, said DeSantis.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllWorld Mental Health Day: Acknowledging Pregnancy Loss in the Legal Industry
6 minute readFederal Judge Allows Centers to Promote Abortion 'Reversal' Protocol
Trending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Election 2024: Nationwide Judicial Races and Ballot Measures to Watch
- 3Guarantees Are Back, Whether Law Firms Want to Talk About Them or Not
- 4How I Made Practice Group Chair: 'If You Love What You Do and Put the Time and Effort Into It, You Will Excel,' Says Lisa Saul of Forde & O'Meara
- 5Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
- 6How Much Does the Frequency of Retirement Withdrawals Matter?
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250