SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Title: Ryan Klaassen,
et al., Applicants
v.
Trustees of Indiana University
Docketed: August 6, 2021
Lower Ct. United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Case Numbers: (21-2326) (21-2326)
DATE Aug 06 2021
PROCEEDINGS AND ORDERS
Application (21A15) for injunctive relief, submitted to Justice Barrett.
Main Document Proof of Service Other
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1SvR5uKs4svo1K1ZiaqavuOz36mgxrjRW/view?usp=sharing
No. 21A-
In the Supreme Court of the United States
_______________
Ryan Klaassen, Jaime Carini, Daniel J. Baumgartner, Ashlee Morris, SethCrowder, Macey Policka, Margaret Roth, and Natalie Sperazza,
Applicants,
v.
The Trustees of Indiana University
Respondent
_______________
Emergency Application for Writ of Injunction,
Relief Requested by Friday, August 13, 2021
To the Honorable Amy Coney Barrett
Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States and
Circuit Justice for the Seventh Circuit
August 6, 2021
Questions Presented
I.Whether heightened scrutiny applies to Indiana University’s Mandate thatall IU students take the COVID vaccine in violation of their constitutional rights tobodily integrity and autonomy and medical treatment choice so that IU must provethat its Mandate is justified, which the courts below erroneously failed to do.
II.Whether IU failed to prove that its Mandate is justified under heightened scrutiny.
To the Honorable Amy Coney Barrett, Associate Justice of theSupreme Court and Circuit Justice for the Seventh Circuit:
Pursuant to Supreme Court Rules 22 and 23, and 28 U.S.C. § 1651, Applicants(“Students”) respectfully request a writ of injunction by Friday, August 13—related to Indiana University (“IU”) mandating that all students receive a COVIDvaccine (“IU’s Mandate”) in violation of Students’ Fourteenth Amendment1 rights.
Students thus respectfully request that this Circuit Justice grant the requestedrelief or refer this application to the Court.
Introduction
Students challenged IU’s Mandate requiring students to take COVIDvaccinations, despite their objection. Students’ refusal is based on legitimateconcerns including underlying medical conditions, having natural antibodies, andthe risks associated with the vaccine. All students are adults, are entitled to maketheir own medical treatment decisions, and have a constitutional right to bodilyintegrity, autonomy, and of medical treatment choice in the context of a vaccinationmandate. IU, however, is treating its students as children who cannot be trusted tomake mature decisions and has substituted itself for both the student and herattending physician, mandating a choice which is the student’s to make, based onher physician’s advice.
The only way such rights can be infringed is for IU to justify its override of thestudent’s choice within the boundaries of the U.S. Constitution. The courts below,
however, did not require this, because they erroneously applied rational basisscrutiny instead of the heightened scrutiny appropriate to infringements of therights at stake here. Under proper heightened scrutiny, IU’s Mandate cannot bejustified and should be enjoined.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1o2a21QB0fbsIiq0xKGRXuBLw_GccxmYE/view?usp=sharing
Verified Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief
United States District Court
Northern District of Indiana
Ryan Klaassen, Jaime Carini, D.J.B., by and though his next friend and father, Daniel G. Baumgartner, Ashlee Morris, Seth Crowder, Macey Policka, Margaret Roth, and Natalie Sperazza, Plaintiffs,
v.
The Trustees of Indiana University, Defendant.
Civ. No. 1:21-cv-238
Introduction
1. This is a civil action for declaratory and injunctive relief arising under the Fourteenth Amendment and Indiana Code § 16-39-11-5 (Indiana’s “Vaccine Passport Law”).
2. It concerns the constitutionality of Indiana University’s Vaccine Mandate (“IU’s Mandate”), which requires that all students to receive one of the available COVID vaccines.
3. IU’s Mandate violates the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which includes rights of personal autonomy and bodily integrity, and the right to reject medical treatment.
4. IU’s Mandate also violates Indiana’s new Vaccine Passport Law which prohibits state and local units (including Indiana University (“IU”)) from requiring or issuing vaccine “passports” that indicate an individual’s COVID immunization status.
Count I
Count II
Prayer for Relief
Wherefore, Plaintiffs request the following relief:
250. Declare IU’s Vaccine Mandate unconstitutional on its face;
251. Declare IU’s Mandate unconstitutional as applied to each Plaintiff;
252. Enjoin IU from enforcing IU’s Mandate on its face or as applied;
253. Grant Plaintiffs their costs and attorneys fees under 42 U.S.C. Section 1988 and any other applicable authority; and
254. Grant any and all other such relief as this Court deems just and equitable.
Dated: June 21, 2021
REFERENCE:
Klaassen v. The Trustees of Indiana University (1:21-cv-00238)
District Court, N.D. Indiana
No comments:
Post a Comment