Amicus Curiae Brief — Cynthia Braccia, et al., Petitioners v. Northwell Health Systems

No. 25-963

In the

Supreme Court of the United States

________________________

CYNTHIA BRACCIA, et al.,

Petitioners,

v.

NORTHWELL HEALTH SYSTEMS,

Respondent.

________________________

On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United

States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Amici Curiae Brief of America’s Frontline

Doctors and Dr. Simone Gold, M.D., J.D., in

Support of Petitioners for Reversal

DR. SIMONE GOLD, M.D., J.D.

DAVID A. DALIA, Attorney at Law

Counsel of Record

700 Camp Street

New Orleans, LA 70130

(504) 524-5541

davidadalia@gmail.com

Counsel for Amici Curiae

–i–

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ............................................... ii

A MATTER OF GREAT PUBLIC IMPORTANCE ................... 1

INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE .......................................... 2

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .............................................. 5

ARGUMENT .................................................................... 7

A.

Fundamental constitutional rights of

patients such as the free exercise of

religion under the First Amendment,

the right to refuse medical treatment

under the Fourteenth Amendment, and

federal laws such as Title VII take

precedence over state and local laws to

the contrary. The Supremacy Clause

and good public policy require that the

Constitution remains supreme. This is

especially crucial when experimental

mRNA injections with terrible safety

profiles are mandated, and reasonable

accommodations are prohibited through

an unjustified “undue burden” rationale.

This medical mandate is against public

policy. .............................................................. 7

B.

It is undisputed that the mandated

experimental mRNA injectable drugs

were never approved by the FDA,

despite erroneous media reports to the

contrary, and have shockingly high

fatality rates. The CDC’s own reporting

– ii –

system has documented millions of

adverse reactions and a tragic 39,050

fatalities attributable to these experimental mRNA injections through

February 27, 2026. Previously, a

vaccine would have been pulled from

the market after only a few deaths.

VAERS has also documented millions of

adverse reactions and hospitalizations. ...... 12

C.

“Mandating” a dangerous experimental

drug absent voluntary, coercion-free

informed

consent

violates

wellestablished constitutional principles,

including the right to refuse medical

treatment and of personal bodily

integrity; violates civil and criminal

federal and state laws prohibiting

medical battery, negligent injuring,

assault, and negligent homicide; and

violates numerous federal regulations

requiring voluntary informed consent

and full disclosure, including 21 U.S.C.

§ 360bbb-3, 21 C.F.R. § 50.20, 21 C.F.R.

§ 50.25, 45 C.F.R. § 46.116, and the

Nuremberg Code. ......................................... 20

CONCLUSION ............................................................... 24

– iii –

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASES

PAGE(S)

Bridges v. Methodist Hospital,

2024 WL 4354816 (S.D. Tex

Sept. 30, 2024) ............................................ 4, 10, 23

Canterbury v. Spence,

464 F.2d 772 (1972) ............................................. 22

Cobbs v. Grant,

8 Cal.3d 229 (1972) .............................................. 22

Cooper v. Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer

Center, 196 N.Y.S.3d 325 (Sup. Ct. 2023) ............. 6

Cruzan v. Dir., Mo. Dep’t of Health,

497 U.S. 261 (1990) .......................................... 4, 22

Doe #1 v. Rumsfeld,

297 F. Supp. 2d 119 (D.D.C. 2003) ...................... 22

Does v. Hochul,

632 F. Supp. 3d 120 (E.D.N.Y. 2022)................... 19

Does 1-2 v. Hochul,

2024 WL 5182675 (2d Cir. Dec. 20, 2024) ........... 11

Downer v. Veilleux,

322 A.2d 82 (Me. 1974) ........................................ 22

Georgia v. President of the United States,

46 F.4th 1283 (11th Cir. 2022) ............................ 10

– iv –

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

(Continued)

Groff v. DeJoy,

600 U.S. 447 (2023) .............................................. 11

Guardianship of Roe,

383 Mass. 415 (1981) ........................................... 22

Mahmoud v. Taylor,

606 U.S. 522 (2025) .......................................... 2, 23

Medical Professionals for Informed Consent v.

Bassett, 78 Misc. 3d 482

(Sup. Ct. Jan. 13, 2023) ....................................... 10

Miller v. McDonald,

223 L. Ed. 2d 270 (2025) .............................. 2, 5, 23

Mills v. Rogers,

457 U.S. 291 (1982) .............................................. 22

Nat’l Fed’n of Indep. Bus. v. DOL, OSHA,

595 U.S. 109 (2022) ............................................. 10

Riggins v. Nevada,

504 U.S. 127 (1992) ........................................ 22–23

Russo v. Patchogue-Medford Sch. Dist.,

129 F.4th 182, 186 (2d Cir. 2025) ........................ 11

Santosky v. Kramer,

455 U.S. 745 (1982) ................................................ 4

Schloendorff v Society of New York Hospital.

211 N.Y. 125 (1914).............................................. 22

–v–

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

(Continued)

Sell v. United States,

539 U.S. 166 (2003) .............................................. 23

Sweeney v. Univ. of Colorado Hosp. Auth.,

2024 WL 3713835 (D. Colo. July 12,

2024) ..................................................... 4, 10, 23, 24

Texas v. Becerra,

577 F. Supp.3d 527 (N.D. Tex. 2021)................... 10

Texas v. Becerra,

667 F.Supp.3d 252 (N.D.Tex. 2023)..................... 10

United KP Freedom Alliance v. Kaiser

Permanente, No. 21-cv-07894-VC,

(N.D.Cal. Nov. 18, 2021) ...................................... 23

Vacco v. Quill,

521 U.S. 793 (1997) .............................................. 22

Washington v. Harper,

494 U.S. 210 (1990) .............................................. 22

CONSTITUTION

First Amendment .......................................... 5, 6, 7, 25

Fourteenth Amendment .......................................... 5, 7

U.S. Const. Art. VI, Cl. 2 ............................... 5, 6, 7, 25

– vi –

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

(Continued)

STATUTES AND REGULATIONS

21 U.S.C. § 241 .......................................................... 23

21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3 ........................................... 20, 21

21 C.F.R. § 50.20 ........................................... 20, 21, 22

21 C.F.R. § 50.25 ........................................... 20, 21, 22

45 C.F.R. § 46 ............................................................ 22

45 C.F.R. § 46.116 ............................................... 20, 21

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ........... 5, 6, 25

RULES

Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 12(b)(6) ..................................... 10

OTHER REFERENCES

“33 nurses ‘died suddenly’ in the US this past

week [No causes of death were listed],”

https://markcrispinmiller.substack.com/p/

33-nurses-died-suddenly-in-the-us........................ 6

– vii –

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

(Continued)

Luigi Cari, et al. “Differences in the expression

levels of SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein in cells

treated with mRNA-based COVID-19

vaccines: A study on vaccines from the real

world.” Vaccines (Basel) 11(4):879. Apr 21,

2023 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3711

2792 ....................................................................... 19

Covid Pedia | America's Frontline Doctors Vaccine Safety https://aflds.org/covid-pedia/

vaccine-safety ....................................................... 13

“England Refuses to Offer COVID Shots to

Kids Under 12, While US Cities Mandate

Them. Who’s Right?” https://fee.org/articles/

england-refuses-to-offer-covid-shots-to-kids

-under-12-while-us-cities-mandate-themwho-s-right/ ............................................................ 9

“Finland joins Sweden and Denmark in

limiting Moderna COVID-19 vaccine,”

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/finla

nd-pauses-use-moderna-covid-19-vaccineyoung-men-2021-10-07/ .......................................... 9

“Florida State Surgeon General Calls for Halt

in the Use of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines.”

https://www.floridahealthgov/newsroom/20

24/01/20240103-halt-use-covid19-mrna-vac

cines.pr.html ........................................................... 8

– viii –

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

(Continued)

Global Preparedness Monitoring Board. “New

risks raise pandemic threat on a global

scale.” October 14, 2024. https://www.gpmb.

org/news/news/item/14-10-2024-new-risksraise-pandemic-threat-on-a-global-scale ....... 10–11

Simone Gold, M.D., J.D. “A White Paper on

Hydroxychloroquine,” https://americasfront

linedoctors.org/index/covid/hydroxychloroq

uine/white-paper/ ........................................... 17–18

Josh Guetzkow and Retsef Levi. “Effect of

mRNA vaccine manufacturing processes on

efficacy and safety still an open question”

(letter to the Editor), BMJ 2022;378:o1731.

July

12,

2022.

https://www.bmj.com/

content/378/bmj.o1731/rr-2 .................................. 20

Lee Harding. “Japanese researchers say side

effects of COVID vaccines linked to 201

types of diseases,” Western Standard,

January 15, 2024. https://www.western

standard.news/news/japanese-researcherssay-side-effects-of-covid-vaccines-linked-to201-types-of-diseases/51661 ................................ 15

Jesús Hermosilla, et al. “Analysing the in-use

stability of mRNA-LNP COVID-19 vaccines

Comirnaty™ (Pfizer) and Spikevax™

(Moderna): A comparative study of the

particulate.” Vaccines (Basel) 11(11):1635.

Oct 25, 2023. https://pub med.ncbi.nlm.nih.

gov/38005967 .................................................. 19–20

– ix –

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

(Continued)

Hong Jin Kim, et al. “Broad-Spectrum Adverse

Events of Special Interests Based on

Immune Response Following COVID-19

Vaccination: A Large-Scale PopulationBased Cohort Study,” J. Clin. Med. 14(5)

1767, March 6, 2025. https://www.mdpi.

com/2077-0383/14/5/1767 ..................................... 17

https://aflds.org/about-us/press-releases/ameri

cas-frontline-doctors-supports-the-filing-ofa-petition-for-preliminary-injunction-to-pre

vent-kaiser-permanente-from-enforcing-th

eir-vaccine-mandate ............................................... 2

https://americasfrontlinedoctors.org/about-us ........... 1

https://www.fda.gov/media/151710/download .... 18–19

https://c19hcq.org /..................................................... 18

https://c19ivm.org/ ..................................................... 18

https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-andpolicy/regulations/common-rule/

index.html............................................................. 22

https://openvaers.com/covid-data .............................. 12

https://x.com/ChildrensHD/status/1925355939

369988144 ............................................................ 14

https://x.com/drsimonegold/status/1892626222

250639592............................................................. 15

–x–

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

(Continued)

https://x.com/SecKennedy/status/19273684408

11008138 .......................................................... 8, 17

https://www.history.com/news/the-infamous40-year-tuskegee-study ........................................ 24

Tomomi Koizumi and Masao Ono, “Cardiac

Multiple Micro-Scars: An Autopsy Study,”

J Am Coll Cardiol Case Rep. 30(5) 10383,

March 2025. https://www.jacc.org/doi/10.

1016/j.jaccas.2024.103083.................................... 15

Raphael Lataster, Ph.D. “European excess

mortality correlates with COVID-19 vaccination

into 2024.” Bulgarian Medicine 13:2 (2023)

https://www.skirsch.com/covid/lataster.pdf ................. 14

Retsef Levi, et al., “Twelve-month all-cause

mortality

after

initial

COVID-19

vaccination with Pfizer-BioNTech or

mRNA-1273 among adults living in

Florida,” https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.04.25.

25326460 .............................................................. 14

“Louisiana health officials ‘shifting away’ from

policy

of

promoting

COVID,

flu

vaccinations.” https://www.nola.com/news/

politics/vaccine-louisiana-policy-covid-flu/

article_3e0521bc-c096-11ef-bfd3-fb3898317

70e.html.................................................................. 8

– xi –

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

(Continued)

Vibeke Manniche, et al. “Rates of successful

conceptions

according

to

COVID-19

vaccination status: Data from the Czech

Republic.” https://www.preprints.org/manusc

ript/202504.2487/v1?utm_source=substack

&utm_medium=email .......................................... 14

M. Nathaniel Mead, et al. “Myocarditis after

SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19

vaccination: Epidemiology, outcomes, and

new perspectives,” Intl J Cardiovascular

Rsch & Innovation, 3(1) 1-43, Jan-Mar

2025. https://cardiovascular-research-andinnovation.reseaprojournals.com/Articles/

myocarditis-after-sars-cov-2-infection-andcovid-19-vaccination-epidemiologyoutcomes-and-new-perspectives) ......................... 15

Art Moore. “CDC data signaling vaccine

catastrophe: It took only 32 deaths to halt

1976 shot campaign.” World Net Daily,

February 14, 2022. https://www.wnd.com/

2022/02/cdc-data-signaling-vaccinecatastrophe/ .......................................................... 13

Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. “Slovak Government Report Calls for Ban of ‘Dangerous’

mRNA Vaccines,” Science, Public Health

Policy and the Law. https://publichealth

policyjournal.com/slovak-governmentreport-calls-for-ban-of-dangerous-mrnavaccines/ .................................................................. 9

– xii –

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

(Continued)

E.O. Okoro, et al. “Paradoxical increase in

global COVID-19 deaths with vaccination

coverage: World Health Organization

estimates

(2020–2023).”

International

Journal of Risk & Safety in Medicine.

2025;0(0). https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/

10.1177/09246479251336610............................... 14

Nuremberg Code ..................................... 20, 21, 22, 24

André Redert, Ph.D. “Causal effect of covid

vaccination on mortality in Europe.”

February 2023. https://www.researchgate.net/

publication/368777703_Causal_effect_of_

covid_vaccination_on_mortality_in_Europe ....... 14

Harold M. Schmeck, Jr. “Swine flu program is

halted in 9 states as 3 die after shots,” The

New York Times, October 13, 1976.

https://www.nytimes.com/1976/10/13/archiv

es/swine-flu-program-is-halted-in-9-statesas-3-die-after-shots.html ..................................... 13

James A. Thorp, et al. “Are COVID-19

Vaccines in Pregnancy as Safe and

Effective as the Medical Industrial

Complex Claim? Part I,” Science, Public

Health Policy and the Law, 2/08/2025.

https://publichealthpolicyjournal.com/arecovid-19-vaccines-in-pregnancy-as-safeand-effective-as-the-medical-industrialcomplex-claim-part-i/ ........................................... 16

– xiii –

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

(Continued)

Lizhou Zhang, et al. “Effect of mRNA-LNP

components of two globally-marketed

COVID-19 vaccines on efficacy and

stability.” NPJ Vaccines 8(1):156 (2023).

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ 37821446/ ...... 20

–1–

A MATTER OF GREAT PUBLIC IMPORTANCE

Coercively mandating dangerous and possibly

fatal experimental drugs while at the same time

violating fundamental constitutional rights of free

exercise of religion and to refuse medical treatments

cannot be countenanced, and causes great harm. This

is about saving lives.

Amici Curiae or “AFLDS” are the Free Speech

Foundation, d/b/a America’s Frontline Doctors, and

Dr. Simone Gold, M.D., J.D., the founder and

physician member with over twenty years’ experience

as an emergency room physician in minority

communities around the nation.1,2 Amici Curiae

respectfully file this amici curiae brief in support of

the Petitioners for reversal in Cynthia Braccia, et al.

v. Northwell Health Systems, No. 25-963.

Amici Curiae have also filed briefs in recent

cases affecting public health and medical freedom,

such as Chiles v. Salazar, No. 24-539, Does 1-2 v.

Hochul, No. 24-1015; Kory v. Bonta, No. 24-932;

Foote v. Ludlow School Committee, No. 25-77; Lee v.

Poudre School District R-1, No. 25-89; Stockton v.

Brown, No. 25-606; Mirabelli v. Bonta, No. 25A810;

Lavigne v. Great Salt Bay Community School Board,

No. 25-759; and International Partners for Ethical

Care, Inc. v. Ferguson, seven of which cases are

under consideration at this time.

1 It is hereby certified that no counsel or any party authored or

prepared this brief in whole or in part, and no such counsel or

party made a monetary contribution intended to fund the

preparation or submission of this brief. The parties received

notice of the filing of this amici curiae brief pursuant to Rule

37.2.

2 https://americasfrontlinedoctors.org/about-us

–2–

AFLDS also filed briefs in cases recently decided

by this Honorable Court, such as Miller v. McDonald,

223 L. Ed. 2d 270 (2025); United States v. Skrmetti,

605 U.S. 495 (2025); Mahmoud v. Taylor, 606 U.S.

522 (2025), and Nat’l Fed’n of Indep. Bus. v. OSHA,

595 U.S. 109 (2022).

This amici curiae brief offers an important

medical and legal perspective to this Court of great

public importance, by conclusively demonstrating

that the Respondent engaged in unconstitutional and

unconscionable activity by “mandating” dangerous

experimental mRNA personal medical treatments in

violation of informed consent and the numerous

clearly established laws and regulations enumerated

herein.

Respondent’s blanket refusal to grant religious

accommodations from its experimental vaccine

mandate on the ground of undue burden violates

fundamental constitutional rights found in the Free

Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, violates

Petitioners’ fundamental constitutional right to

refuse medical treatment, and is medically very

dangerous.

These unconstitutional, illegal and irrational

coercive mandates should be rejected.

INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE

Amici Curiae are a non-partisan, not-for-profit

organization of thousands of member physicians from

across the country, representing a range of medical

disciplines and practical experience on the front lines

of medicine, and its founder and expert physician

and attorney member, Dr. Simone Gold, M.D., J.D.

–3–

AFLDS’ programs focus on a number of critical

issues, including:

• Providing Americans with science-based facts

about COVID-19;

• Protecting physician

government overreach;

independence

from

• Combating COVID-19 with evidence-based

approaches without compromising constitutional freedoms;

• Fighting medical cancel culture and media

censorship;

• Advancing healthcare policies that protect

the physician-patient relationship;

• Expanding COVID-19 treatment options for

all Americans who need them; and

• Strengthening the voices of frontline doctors

in the national healthcare conversation.

Dr. Gold and AFLDS publicly supported the

position, as early as October, 2020, that experimental

mRNA injections are not “vaccines” because they do

not prevent infection or transmission, and they are

neither “safe” nor “effective.”3 They are personal

medical treatments only. This view is now known to

be correct and highly relevant to this case.

The proven lack of efficacy of experimental

COVID-19 mRNA injections is an important point, as

other rulings now on appeal, and which also relied

upon the false assumption of efficacy, also found a

3 https://aflds.org/about-us/press-releases/americas-frontline-doctors-

supports-the-filing-of-a-petition-for-preliminary-injunction-to-pre

vent-kaiser-permanente-from-enforcing-their-vaccine-mandate

–4–

“compelling” governmental interest in justifying a

coercive medical mandate for a dangerous drug that

does not protect other people.4

If the experimental mRNA drug does not protect

other people, it is irrational to mandate it. Certainly

such a mandate cannot survive the strict scrutiny for

individual medical treatments demanded by Cruzan

v. Dir., Mo. Dep’t of Health, 497 U.S. 261, 282 (1990):

“This Court has mandated an intermediate standard

of proof — ‘clear and convincing evidence’ — when

the individual interests at stake in a state proceeding

are both ‘particularly important’ and ‘more

substantial than mere loss of money.’” (quoting

Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 756 (1982)).

“Informed consent” must be fully informed, never

coerced, nor subjected to undue influence, nor

distorted by censored and incomplete information.

It is Amici Curiae’s position that decisions to

illegally “mandate” a dangerous experimental

medical treatment which does not prevent infection or

transmission, and which also has severe side effects,

including death, which are undisclosed to the patient,

while simultaneously violating numerous civil and

See, e.g., Bridges v. Methodist Hospital, 2024 WL 4354816

(S.D. Tex. Sept. 30, 2024), No. 23-cv-1699, Doc. 99, p. 16.

(“Methodist

implemented

a

mandatory

COVID-19

immunization policy in an effort ‘to do their business of saving

lives’ without spreading the COVID-19 virus and ‘to keep staff,

patients, and their families safer.’ ... Those are legitimate

interests, and the immunization policy is rationally related to

them.”); Sweeney v. Univ. of Colorado Hosp. Auth., 2024 WL

3713835 (D. Colo. July 12, 2024), No. 23-cv-02451, Doc. 58, p. 27

(Concluding stemming the spread of COVID-19 is a compelling

interest and mandating vaccination is rationally related to that

interest.) Sweeney v. Univ. of Colorado Hosp. Auth. is pending

on petition for a writ of certiorari to this Court, No. 25-1055.

4

–5–

criminal laws, under the coercive threat of the loss of

one’s employment, are irrational and against public

policy.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

Fundamental constitutional rights of patients

such as the free exercise of religion under the First

Amendment, the right to refuse medical treatment

under the Fourteenth Amendment, and federal laws

such as Title VII always take precedence over state

and local laws to the contrary. The Supremacy

Clause and good public policy require that the

Constitution remains supreme.

This is especially crucial when dangerous

experimental mRNA injections with terrible safety

profiles are mandated, and reasonable accommodations are prohibited through an unjustified

“undue burden” rationale.

It is not an “undue burden” on Respondent to

simply respect its patient/employees free exercise of

religion, and to stop forcing experimental injections

upon them against their will, violating their

informed consent. This Court’s holding in Miller v.

McDonald, 223 L. Ed. 2d 270 (2025) (No. 25-133)

makes this clear.

Overwhelming evidence shows that these

experimental COVID-19 mRNA injections are not

“safe” or “effective.” Any decision to illegally

“mandate” a dangerous experimental medical

treatment which does not prevent infection or

transmission, and which also has undisclosed severe

side effects, including death at unacceptable levels, is

completely irrational. Simultaneously violating the

–6–

patient’s fundamental constitutional rights and

federal laws such as Title VII via such “mandate,”

under the coercive threat of the loss of one’s

employment, is also completely irrational and

against public policy. See, e.g., Cooper v. Roswell

Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, 196 N.Y.S.3d

325, 332 (Sup. Ct. 2023), finding that an arbitrator’s

finding favoring a medical centers’ decision to

terminate a nurse because of her refusal to take a

COVID-19 injection was “irrational.”5

It is not an “undue burden” on Respondent to

simply respect its employees’ religious beliefs and

not force them to take unwanted and dangerous

injections. At this juncture, any doubt should be

resolved in favor of voluntary patient freedom of

choice and against coercing unwanted and dangerous

experimental medical treatments upon anyone. This

is good public policy.

Further, there can be no debate that state law

can never preempt Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of

1964, the First Amendment, or the Supremacy

Clause of the Constitution itself. The conflict

between Circuits which do not follow this basic rule

of law and the numerous Circuits which do follow it

should be resolved by this Honorable Court.

The rulings below should be reversed.

5 See also, “33 nurses ‘died suddenly’ in the US this past week

[No causes of death were listed],” https://markcrispinmiller.sub

stack.com/p/33-nurses-died-suddenly-in-the-us

–7–

ARGUMENT

A. Fundamental constitutional rights of

patients such as the free exercise of

religion under the First Amendment,

the right to refuse medical treatment

under the Fourteenth Amendment, and

federal laws such as Title VII take

precedence over state and local laws to

the contrary. The Supremacy Clause

and good public policy require that the

Constitution remains supreme. This is

especially crucial when experimental

mRNA injections with terrible safety

profiles are mandated, and reasonable

accommodations are prohibited through

an

unjustified

“undue

burden”

rationale. This medical mandate is

against public policy.

It is now becoming widely known that the

experimental mRNA injections introduced to treat

COVID-19 are neither “safe,” on account of their

terrible safety profiles, nor “effective” because they

do not stop transmission of the virus. See Section B

and accompanying footnotes. Therefore, these

experimental drugs offer no protection for other

people. They are personal medical treatments only.

In response to the true facts of lack of safety and

efficacy, government policies and recommendations

have changed.

HHS Secretary Kennedy announced on May 27,

2025 that the COVID vaccine for healthy children

and healthy pregnant women was removed from the

–8–

CDC’s

recommended

immunization

schedule,

6

changing previous CDC recommendations.

Florida state Surgeon General Dr. Joseph A.

Ladapo called for a complete halt in the use of

COVID-19 mRNA “vaccines,” citing contamination

concerns.7

Louisiana health officials shifted away from the

policy of promoting COVID-19 and flu vaccinations,

citing concerns about the efficacy and safety of these

vaccines.8 The Louisiana Health Department stated

that medicine is not “one size fits all.” All patients

are different, with different medical needs.

Therefore, it is inappropriate and possibly medical

malpractice to issue blanket medical treatment

recommendations or requirements to broad categories of patients, without first assessing and

examining each patient individually, and without

6 https://x.com/SecKennedy/status/1927368440811008138

“The Surgeon General outlined concerns regarding nucleic

acid contaminants in the approved Pfizer and Moderna COVID19 mRNA vaccines, particularly in the presence of lipid

nanoparticle complexes, and Simian Virus 40 (SV40)

promoter/enhancer DNA.” “Florida State Surgeon General Calls

for Halt in the Use of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines.”

https://www.floridahealthgov/newsroom/2024/01/20240103-haltuse-covid19-mrna-vaccines.pr.html

8 “Citing concerns about the efficacy and safety of vaccines,

state officials will instead encourage residents to consult their

doctor about vaccination, Louisiana Department of Health

spokesperson Emma Herrock said in a statement. ‘In general,

the department is shifting away from one-size-fits-all

paternalistic guidance to a more informative approach aimed at

enabling individuals, in consultation with their doctor, to make

better decisions for themselves,’ the statement said.” “Louisiana

health officials ‘shifting away’ from policy of promoting COVID,

flu vaccinations.” https://www.nola.com/news/politics/vaccinelouisiana-policy-covid-flu/article_3e0521bc-c096-11ef-bfd3-fb389

7

–9–

diagnosing their unique medical conditions by a

qualified medical professional.

Many bills have been introduced in state

legislatures recently, including Iowa, Kentucky,

Montana, Minnesota, Idaho and others, which seek

to limit or ban entirely the administration of these

experimental mRNA injections, or gene therapy, due

to the terrible safety profiles of these experimental

drugs.9

If these experimental injections were really safe

and effective, why would states be seeking to ban

them?

Many European countries, including Finland,

Sweden, Denmark, the United Kingdom and

Slovakia have taken similar actions in limiting or

eliminating their previous blanket mRNA injection

recommendations.10,11

See, e.g., Iowa House File 712, Bill SF360; Kentucky House

Bill 469; Montana House Bill 371; Idaho Senate Bill 1036;

Minnesota HF 3152, HF 3219.

10 “Finland joins Sweden and Denmark in limiting Moderna

COVID-19 vaccine,” https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/

finland-pauses-use-moderna-covid-19-vaccine-young-men-202110-07/

“England Refuses to Offer COVID Shots to Kids Under 12,

While US Cities Mandate Them. Who’s Right?”: “... the

UKHSA’s decision puts England in line with several other

European countries—including Sweden, Finland, Norway, and

Denmark—that do not offer or recommend mRNA vaccines to

healthy young children.” https://fee.org/articles/england-refusesto-offer-covid-shots-to-kids-under-12-while-us-cities-mandatethem-who-s-right/

11 Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. “Slovak Government Report Calls

for Ban of ‘Dangerous’ mRNA Vaccines,” Science, Public Health

Policy and the Law. https://publichealthpolicyjournal.com/

slovak-government-report-calls-for-ban-of-dangerous-mrnavaccines/

9

– 10 –

Unfortunately, many courts have embraced the

now-disproved “safe and effective” narrative in

upholding forced experimental mRNA injection

mandates; several of these decisions are still on

appeal.12 These disputed and controversial issues are

inappropriate for dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P.

12(b)(6).

The rulings below failed to follow the lead of

Nat’l Fed’n of Indep. Bus. v. DOL, OSHA, 595 U.S.

109 (2022), in which this Court stayed the OSHA

nationwide employee vaccine mandate, and Georgia

v. President of the United States, 46 F.4th 1283 (11th

Cir. 2022), which upheld the nationwide injunction

pausing the federal contractor vaccine mandate. See

also Texas v. Becerra, 577 F.Supp.3d 527 (N.D. Tex.

2021) and 667 F.Supp.3d 252 (N.D. Tex. 2023) (HHS

lacked authority to mandate any specific type of

medical treatments, specifically a vaccine for Head

Start staff, contractors and volunteers; court vacated

the federal rule entirely.)

In Medical Professionals for Informed Consent v

Bassett, 78 Misc. 3d 482 (Sup Ct. Jan. 13, 2023), the

court granted a declaratory judgment to a group of

doctors and nurses, holding that the hospital and

“covered entities” vaccine mandate ordered by the

New York State Department of Health (DOH) was

null, void, and of no effect. The vaccine mandate was

then dropped by DOH, and the appeal was declared

moot.13

12 See, e.g., Sweeney, supra, at n.4.

13 Regarding mootness, these issues are extremely likely to

recur, yet are evading review. Threats of new pandemics are

coming in from many quarters. Further, numerous antimandate cases like this one have flooded American courts. This

is likely to continuously recur if not corrected now. See “New

risks raise pandemic threat on a global scale,” https://

– 11 –

In this case, the lower courts justified a denial of

religious freedom by ruling that Respondent would

suffer “undue burden” in respecting its employees

religious beliefs simply because it might violate state

law if it accommodated Petitioners in the manner

requested. In Does 1-2 v. Hochul, 2024 WL 5182675,

*4 (2d Cir. Dec. 20, 2024)14 the Second Circuit

similarly opined that the “heightened standard for

undue hardship recently set forth in Groff [v. DeJoy,

600 U.S. 447 (2023)]” still justified its own

precedent,15 to wit, that “an accommodation that

would require an employer to violate the [state] law

imposes an undue hardship.” Russo v. PatchogueMedford Sch. Dist., 129 F.4th 182, 186 (2d Cir. 2025)

(per curiam).16

It is not an “undue burden” on Respondent to

simply respect its employees’ religious beliefs and not

force them to take unwanted and dangerous

injections. The undue burden rationale advanced by

Respondent and the lower courts does not meet the

substantial burden standard of Groff, and the ruling

should be reversed.

In all good conscience, how can anyone coercively

“mandate” any drug that might kill a patient, without

voluntary, coercion-free consent, and without being

fully informed of the risks?

www.gpmb.org/news/news/item/14-10-2024-new-risks-raise-pande

mic-threat-on-a-global-scale

14 Petition pending at Does 1-2 v. Hochul, No. 24-1015.

15 See Braccia v. Northwell Health Systems, Appendix B, App.

8a.

16 See id., App. 7a.

– 12 –

B. It is undisputed that the mandated

experimental mRNA injectable drugs

were never approved by the FDA,

despite erroneous media reports to the

contrary, and have shockingly high

fatality rates. The CDC’s own reporting

system has documented millions of

adverse reactions and a tragic 39,050

fatalities attributable to these experimental mRNA injections through

February 27, 2026. Previously, a

vaccine would have been pulled from

the market after only a few deaths.

VAERS has also documented millions

of adverse reactions and hospitalizations.

The CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting

System (VAERS) data show that as of February 27,

2026, there have been 39,050 deaths in America

alone, which thousands of medical professionals

have independently attributed to fatal adverse

reactions to the mandated experimental mRNA

injections, a.k.a. “vaccines.”17 This cannot reasonably

be considered “safe” or “effective.” Additionally,

VAERS recorded 74,578 permanently disabled

persons, 222,446 hospitalizations, 157,782 urgent

care visits, 250,089 doctor visits, 18,008 cases of

Bell’s Palsy, 5,216 miscarriages, 22,486 heart

attacks, 29,188 Myocarditis/Pericarditis cases, and

11,253 cases of Anaphylaxis.

The reported American death toll has now risen

to an astonishing 39,050 deaths. This shocks the

conscience. Even if only a certain percentage of these

17 https://openvaers.com/covid-data

– 13 –

COVID-19 mRNA injection adverse reaction reports

are accurate, the death toll and the accompanying

risks remain unacceptable. How can anyone mandate

anything that might kill you?

Thus, even apart from the specific religious

objections presented by Petitioners in this case, these

high adverse reaction statistics obviously form a

reasonable and moral basis for some patients to

avoid risky experimental mRNA injections in favor of

safer alternatives, in the exercise of voluntary

consent, free of coercion, and after the required full

disclosure of these medical risks.

In stark contrast, in 1976, after only 32 deaths

were attributable to the swine flu vaccine, the

United States government halted the mass

vaccination campaign.18 The New York Times

reported on October 13, 1976 that the swine flu

program was halted in nine states after only three

deaths were attributed to the vaccine shots.19

Amici Curiae have compiled an extensive

database on the lack of safety and efficacy of the

COVID-19 mRNA injections.20

At least five more recent and reliable medical

studies further explode the “safe and effective”

18 Art Moore. “CDC data signaling vaccine catastrophe: It took

only 32 deaths to halt 1976 shot campaign.” World Net Daily,

February 14, 2022. https://www.wnd.com/2022/02/cdc-data-sig

naling- vaccine-catastrophe/

19 Harold M. Schmeck, Jr. “Swine flu program is halted in 9

states as 3 die after shots,” The New York Times, October 13,

1976.

20 See Covid Pedia | America's Frontline Doctors - Vaccine

Safety. https://aflds.org/covid-pedia/vaccine-safety

– 14 –

narrative.21

In dynamic testimony before Congress on May

21, 2025, followed by rousing applause, renowned

expert cardiologist Dr. Peter A. McCullough, M.D.

explained exactly why the experimental mRNA

injections were neither safe nor effective, and were

dangerous.22

Five recent papers show vaccine COVID vaccine harms

outweigh any benefits:

The Pfizer injection increases your all cause mortality by

greater than 36%. Retsef Levi, et al. “Twelve-month all-cause

mortality after initial COVID-19 vaccination with PfizerBioNTech or mRNA-1273 among adults living in Florida,”

https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.04.25. 25326460

Women who got the shot were 30 to 50 percent less likely

to give birth, see Vibeke Manniche, et al. “Rates of successful

conceptions according to COVID-19 vaccination status: Data

from the Czech Republic.” https://www.preprints.org/manu

script/202504.2487/v1?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

One paper shows a high correlation (.5, highly statistically

significant) between vaccination and death. E.O. Okoro, et al.

“Paradoxical increase in global COVID-19 deaths with

vaccination coverage: World Health Organization estimates

(2020–2023).” International Journal of Risk & Safety in

Medicine. 2025;0(0). https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/

09246479251336610

There is a strong correlation between the uptake of the

vaccine and excess all-cause mortality. See Raphael Lataster,

Ph.D. “European excess mortality correlates with COVID-19

vaccination into 2024.” Bulgarian Medicine 13:2 (2023).

https://www.skirsch.com/covid/lataster.pdf

A vaccine dose fatality rate of 0.35% in Europe is greater

than the infection fatality rate of 0.1% for COVID. See André

Redert, Ph.D. “Causal effect of covid vaccination on mortality in

Europe.”

February

2023.

https://www.researchgate.net/

publication/368777703_Causal_effect_of_covid_vaccination_on_

mortality_in_Europe

22 “TRUTH BOMB: Peter McCullough Doesn’t Hold Back — ‘IT

WAS NOT SAFE BY DESIGN,’” https://x.com/ChildrensHD/

status/1925355939369988144

21

– 15 –

Japanese researchers linked these experimental

mRNA injection side effects to 201 types of

diseases.23 In another recent Japanese study,

researchers found on autopsy multiple micro-scars in

the hearts of mRNA-vaccinated patients who died

suddenly of unexplained cardiac arrest, thus raising

the question of a link between the experimental

mRNA injections and sudden cardiac arrest.24

Further, an alarming Yale study shows that

COVID vaccines may cause T-cell exhaustion,

leading to an acquired immune deficiency. Could this

be “...a vaccine that weakens immunity instead of

strengthening it?”25

An authoritative new study examining the link

between the COVID-19 vaccine and Myocarditis

concluded: “We urge governments to remove the

COVID-19 mRNA products from the market due to

the well-documented risk of myocardial damage.”26

Another recent study highlighted that Pfizer's

post-marketing surveillance analysis showed a

23 Lee Harding, “Japanese researchers say side effects of COVID

vaccines linked to 201 types of diseases,” Western Standard,

January 15, 2024. https://www.westernstandard.news/news/jap

anese-researchers-say-side-effects-of-covid-vaccines-linked-to-201types-of-diseases/51661

24 Tomomi Koizumi and Masao Ono, “Cardiac Multiple MicroScars: An Autopsy Study,” J Am Coll Cardiol Case Rep. 30(5)

10383, March 2025. https://www.jacc.org/doi/10.1016/j.jaccas.

2024.103083

25 https://x.com/drsimonegold/status/1892626222250639592

26 M. Nathaniel Mead, et al. “Myocarditis after SARS-CoV-2

infection and COVID-19 vaccination: Epidemiology, outcomes,

and new perspectives,” Intl J Cardiovascular Rsch &

Innovation, 3(1) 1–43, Jan–Mar 2025. https://cardiovascularresearch-and-innovation.reseaprojournals.com/Articles/myocard

itis-after-sars-cov-2-infection-and-covid-19-vaccination-epidemio

logy-outcomes-and-new-perspectives)

– 16 –

miscarriage rate of 81%, a 5-fold increase in

stillbirths, an 8-fold increase in neonatal deaths, and

a 13% incidence of breastfeeding complications in

newborns whose mothers received the COVID

shots:27

Results: The CDC/FDA’s safety signals were

breached for all 37 AEs following COVID-19

vaccination in pregnancy including miscarriage, chromosomal abnormalities, fetal

malformations, cervical insufficiency, fetal

arrhythmia, hemorrhage in pregnancy,

premature

labor/delivery,

preeclampsia,

preterm rupture of membranes, placental

abnormalities, fetal growth restriction,

stillbirth, newborn asphyxia and newborn

death. Conclusions: We found unacceptably

high breaches in safety signals for 37 AEs

after COVID-19 vaccination in pregnant

women. An immediate global moratorium on

COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy is

warranted. (emphasis added)

On May 27, 2025, HHS Secretary Kennedy

announced that the COVID vaccine for healthy

children and healthy pregnant women was removed

27 James A. Thorp, et al. “Are COVID-19 Vaccines in Pregnancy

as Safe and Effective as the Medical Industrial Complex Claim?

Part I,” Science, Public Health Policy and the Law, 2/08/2025.

https://publichealthpolicyjournal.com/are-covid-19-vaccines-inpregnancy-as-safe-and-effective-as-the-medical-industrial-com

plex-claim-part-i/

– 17 –

from the

schedule.28

CDC’s

recommended

immunization

Further, a massive study released in March,

2025 found that among 1.7 million people, COVID-19

“vaccination” increased the risk of “Inner Ear

Disorders by 237%, Menstrual Disorders by 216%,

Glaucoma by 186%, and Endometriosis by 150%,

along with many other negative side effects.”29

It is unconscionable to coercively mandate such a

dangerous experimental drug which does not protect

others.

Amici Curiae maintain, supported by voluminous

scientific research, that early COVID-19 treatments

with hydroxychloroquine (“HCQ”) and Nobel prizewinning Ivermectin are quite safe and effective,

contrary to the incessant government narratives

against such treatment options.30,31,32 These are

HHS announces COVID-19 vaccine removed from CDC’s

recommended immunization schedule: https://x.com/SecKen

nedy/status/1927368440811008138

29 Hong Jin Kim, et al. “Broad-Spectrum Adverse Events of

Special Interests Based on Immune Response Following

COVID-19 Vaccination: A Large-Scale Population-Based Cohort

Study,” J. Clin. Med. 14(5) 1767, March 6, 2025. https://

www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/14/5/1767

30 A white paper draws the reader’s attention to the

indisputable safety of hydroxychloroquine (“HCQ”), an analog of

the same quinine found in tree barks that George Washington

used to protect his troops. “A White Paper on

Hydroxychloroquine,” by Dr. Simone Gold, M.D., J.D., is the

culmination of months-long research from all sources. It

explains how Americans have come to be in the grip of fear. All

the myths and all the misconceptions about a safe, generic drug

that has been FDA approved for 65 years, given to pregnant

women, breast-feeding women, children, the elderly, and the

immune-compromised for years and decades without

complication, are finally put to rest. https://americasfront

28

– 18 –

reasonable

alternatives

to

more

dangerous

experimental mRNA injections, as determined

within each protected doctor/patient relationship.

Amici Curiae maintain, supported by voluminous

scientific research, that experimental mRNA

injections are neither “safe” nor “effective.”

The mandated experimental injections were

always only offered under emergency use

authorization (“EUA”), and were never approved by

the FDA.33 For example, the controversial approval

linedoctors.org/index/covid/hydroxychloroquine/white-paper/

31 As of February 13, 2025, a global, real-time meta-analysis

includes 419 Hydroxychloroquine (“HCQ”) COVID-19 studies,

from 8,646 scientists and 591,536 patients in 59 countries, 406

studies are peer reviewed, with 402 comparing treatment and

control groups. The studies indicate a statistically significant

improvement for mortality, hospitalization, recovery, cases, and

viral clearance, and there is 72 percent less death in 16 early

treatment trials. See https://c19hcq.org/

32 As of February 13, 2025, a global, real-time meta-analysis

includes 105 Ivermectin COVID-19 studies. The studies indicate

Ivermectin reduces risk for COVID-19 with very high

confidence for mortality, ventilation, ICU admission,

hospitalization, recovery, cases and viral clearance. (No

treatment, vaccine, or intervention is 100 percent effective and

available.) Thus all practical, effective, and safe means should

be used based on risk/benefit analysis. Over 20 countries

adopted Ivermectin for COVID-19. Ivermectin may now be

purchased over the counter in the states of Tennessee,

Arkansas, and others. https://c19ivm.org/

33 On August 23, 2021, the FDA approved a COVID-19 drug

called “Comirnaty,” with a long list of required future safety

studies; however, Comirnaty was not in use in the United

States. On the same day, the FDA extended the EUA for the

experimental mRNA COVID-19 drugs which were actually in

use in America. This created a great deal of confusion. It was

erroneously reported that the mRNA injections actually in use

had now been approved by the FDA. However, this was not

true. The EUA for these experimental mRNA injections was

– 19 –

of “Comirnaty,” a legally distinct drug from Pfizer

BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, with somewhat

differing formulations, different manufacturing oversight, and differing adverse reactions, did not change

the experimental EUA nature of the various COVID19 gene therapy injections in use in the United

States, still under EUA. Many lower courts have

erroneously concluded that Pfizer’s COVID-19 injection was approved by the FDA,34 but in fact, it was

the Pfizer drug Comirnaty that was approved (yet

never distributed to the public). The Pfizer COVID19 injection was never approved by the F.D.A.; the

EUA for the COVID-19 vaccine was merely extended.

Both actions were taken on the same day, August 23,

2021, causing much confusion.

Recent studies have demonstrated differences

between Comirnaty and the mandated EUA COVID19 injections. The mandated EUA COVID-19

injections have been found to have higher rates of

Myocarditis, which can be fatal.35,36 The approval of

only extended. Therefore, all of the laws and regulations

applicable to experimental drugs discussed herein were still in

full force and effect at the time of the mandate. See

https://www.fda.gov/media/151710/download

34 See, e.g., Does v. Hochul, 632 F. Supp. 3d 120, 131, 138

(E.D.N.Y. 2022).

35 A paper authored by Luigi Cari and others shows that

Spikevax-Moderna mRNA induces higher spike protein

expression per dose than Comirnaty, and this higher dose

correlates with increased myocarditis risk compared to

Comirnaty. See Luigi Cari, et al. “Differences in the expression

levels of SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein in cells treated with

mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines: A study on vaccines from the

real world.” Vaccines (Basel) 11(4):879. Apr 21, 2023

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37112792/

Jesús Hermosilla, et al. “Analysing the in-use stability of

mRNA-LNP COVID-19 vaccines Comirnaty™ (Pfizer) and

Spikevax™ (Moderna): A comparative study of the particulate.”

– 20 –

Comirnaty did not nullify the applicability of 21

U.S.C. § 360bbb-3, the informed consent regulations,

or the constitutional and statutory provisions.

Because Respondent mandated an experimental

drug, the informed consent and full disclosure

regulations were mandatory. These detailed

regulations mirror the Nuremberg Code. See

especially 21 C.F.R. § 50.25(a)(1)–(8).

C.

“Mandating” a dangerous experimental drug absent voluntary, coercionfree informed consent violates wellestablished constitutional principles,

including the right to refuse medical

treatment and of personal bodily

integrity; violates civil and criminal

federal and state laws prohibiting

medical battery, negligent injuring,

assault, and negligent homicide; and

violates numerous federal regulations

requiring voluntary informed consent

and full disclosure, including 21 U.S.C.

§ 360bbb-3, 21 C.F.R. § 50.20, 21 C.F.R. §

50.25, 45 C.F.R. § 46.116, and the

Nuremberg Code.

Vaccines (Basel) 11(11):1635. Oct 25, 2023. https://pub

med.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38005967/

Lizhou Zhang, et al. “Effect of mRNA-LNP components of

two globally-marketed COVID-19 vaccines on efficacy and

stability.” NPJ Vaccines 8(1):156 (2023). https://pubmed.ncbi.

nlm.nih.gov/ 37821446/

36 Josh Guetzkow and Retsef Levi. “Effect of mRNA vaccine

manufacturing processes on efficacy and safety still an open

question” (letter to the Editor), BMJ 2022;378:o1731. July 12,

2022. https://www.bmj.com/content/378/bmj.o1731/rr-2

– 21 –

Respondent did not comply with well-established

regulations governing informed and voluntary

patient consent, free from coercion and undue

influence, and with full disclosure of the risks. See 21

C.F.R. § 50.20, 21 C.F.R. § 50.25, and 45 C.F.R. §

46.116, entitled “Protection of Human Subjects,” also

known as the longstanding and well-established

“Common Rule.”37

These federal regulations are mandatory for both

public and private actors, embody most of the

Nuremberg principles, and apply to all experimental

drugs issued under an EUA, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. §

360bbb-3.

The threat of job loss totally nullified voluntary

employee/patient consent, free from threat and

undue influence as required by 21 C.F.R. §

50.25(a)(8). No attempt was made to advise the

employee/patients of the substantial known risks of

these experimental drugs as required by 21 C.F.R. §

50.25(a)(2), (4), and (6).

Federal law, incorporating most of the

Nuremberg Code, guarantees that experimental

drugs must only be offered on a voluntary basis after

full disclosure of risks, and with voluntary informed

consent free from coercion. 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3, 21

C.F.R. § 50.20, 21 C.F.R. § 50.25, and 45 C.F.R.

§46.116. Consent can never be coerced.

It is well-established that federal law mandates

that the administration of experimental biological

agents are strictly voluntary, requiring informed

consent and after the full disclosure of risks.

37 https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/regulations/

common-rule/index.html

– 22 –

Indeed, the Nuremberg Code, an international

code of ethical principles adopted in the aftermath of

war crimes committed by the German Nazis during

WWII, was expressly intended to prohibit

involuntary medical experimentation upon humans.

See 21 C.F.R. § 50.20, 21 C.F.R. § 50.25, and 45

C.F.R. 46.38 Respondent violated these mandatory

federal regulations.

The constitutional principles guaranteeing every

individual the right to refuse medical treatment and

the right of personal bodily integrity are similarly

well-established, and were also ignored by the

Respondent. See, e.g., Cruzan v. Dir., Mo. Dep’t. of

Health, 497 U.S. 261 (1990), Washington v. Harper,

494 U.S. 210 (1990), Schloendorff v. Society of New

York Hospital, 211 N.Y. 125 (1914), and Canterbury

v. Spence, 464 F.2d 772 (1972), See also Doe #1 v.

Rumsfeld, 297 F. Supp. 2d 119, 134-35 (D.D.C. 2003)

(“United States cannot demand that members of the

armed forces also serve as guinea pigs for

experimental drugs” (emphasis added)), Downer v.

Veilleux, 322 A.2d 82 (Me. 1974), and Cobbs v. Grant,

8 Cal.3d 229 (1972).

In Vacco v. Quill, 521 U.S. 793 (1997), this Court

stated, “Everyone, regardless of physical condition, is

entitled, if competent, to refuse unwanted lifesaving

medical treatment.” (emphasis added).

Courts have consistently upheld a patient’s wellestablished right to refuse unwanted medical

treatments on constitutional grounds for decades. See

Mills v. Rogers, 457 U.S. 291 (1982) Guardianship of

Roe, 383 Mass. 415 (1981), Riggins v. Nevada, 504

38 https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/regulations/

common-rule/index.html

– 23 –

U.S. 127 (1992), and Sell v. United States, 539 U.S.

166 (2003).

This Court has also recently upheld the right to

refuse vaccination as a free exercise of religious

principle via its holding in Miller v. McDonald, 223

L. Ed. 2d 270 (2025), reversing and instructing the

Second Circuit to uphold the right of Amish parents

to refuse vaccination for their children as an exercise

of their religious beliefs in light of Mahmoud v.

Taylor, 606 U.S. 522 (2025).

New York’s criminal laws prohibiting assault,

medical battery, and negligent homicide are

implicated. Federal criminal laws prohibiting the

violation of constitutional rights are implicated. See

18 U.S.C. § 241.

Preservation of the absolute right of voluntary,

informed patient consent and medical freedom, free

from coercion, and the constitutional right to refuse

medical treatment are paramount considerations

here. These constitutional principles, and federal and

state laws, are fully binding upon Respondent. The

Respondent could not “mandate” any involuntary

medical treatment for the Petitioner employees, even

if the treatment wasn’t experimental, and even if the

refusal wasn’t religious.

The trial courts in Bridges and Sweeney, supra,

relied upon the same false “safe and effective”

narrative made in United KP Freedom Alliance v.

Kaiser Permanente, No. 21-cv-07894-VC (N.D.Cal.

Nov. 18, 2021).

Amici Curiae supported the position, as early as

October, 2020 and in Kaiser Permanente, that

experimental mRNA injections are not “vaccines,”

– 24 –

because they do not prevent infection or transmission, and are personal medical treatments only.

In a three-page opinion, the Kaiser trial judge

erroneously accepted the false “narrative” that the

experimental mRNA injections prevented infection

and transmission. The three-page dismissive opinion

in Kaiser can now be seen as clearly wrong, as it

relied upon incorrect assumptions.39

It is undisputed that forced or coerced

experimentation upon human beings against their

will is reprehensible and should never be allowed by

any court, as the lessons of Nuremberg and the

Tuskegee experiment40 teach. Fortunately, the many

legal protections discussed above preclude the

enforcement of an involuntary experimental medical

mandate promoted by Respondents herein, which are

against public policy.

CONCLUSION

Amici Curiae maintain, supported by voluminous

scientific research, that these dangerous experimenttal mRNA injections neither stop infection nor

transmission. They are personal medical treatments

only. There is no compelling governmental interest in

mandating or coercing them.

Any decision to illegally “mandate” a dangerous

experimental personal medical treatment — under

39 Unfortunately, the lower courts in Sweeney, still on appeal,

made virtually the same mistake by relying upon the false “safe

and effective” narrative as the trial judges made in Kaiser

Permanente.

40 https://www.history.com/news/the-infamous-40-year-tuskegeestudy

– 25 –

the coercive threat of the loss of one’s employment —

is irrational, immoral, and against good public policy.

To escape liability via an unjustified “undue burden”

claim is likewise irrational and against good public

policy. This is particularly true where the

experimental treatment (a) does not prevent

infection or transmission, (b) has severe side effects

including death, (c) is administered while the severe

side

effects

are

not

disclosed

to

the

employee/patients, and the mandate (a) clearly

violates the numerous well-established laws

enumerated herein, and (b) attempts to preempt

Title VII, the Free Exercise Clause, and the

Supremacy Clause.

This harmfully mandated monstrous experiment

is sadly analogous to the infamous Tuskegee

experiment, and must never be allowed to be

repeated.

The petition for certiorari should be granted and

the ruling below should be reversed.

– 26 –

Respectfully submitted,

DR. SIMONE GOLD, M. D., J.D.

DAVID A. DALIA

Counsel of Record

Attorney at Law

700 Camp Street

New Orleans, LA 70130

(504) 524-5541

davidadalia@gmail.com

Counsel for Amici Curiae,

America’s Frontline Doctors and

Dr. Simone Gold, M.D., J.D.

March 19, 2026