The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico has ruled against a registered nurse who claimed that she had the right to treat patients without receiving a COVID vaccination series, contrary to a public health order.  In Valdes v. Grisham, the Court rejected a series of claims that are frequently raised by litigants opposing mandatory vaccination orders:

• The Court ruled that the public health order did not violate the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act since the two mRNA vaccines were assigned emergency use approval.  The Court also maintained that states or other entities are not prevented by the FDCA from requiring vaccination for specific individuals.
• The Court rejected the due process claim since the right to work in a hospital is not a “fundamental right deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition”.  The Court ruled that the requirement For vaccination was rationally related to a legitimate government interest.
• The Court rejected the plaintiff’s claim relating to depravation of bodily integrity.  The Court held that the public health order did not require anyone to be vaccinated but mandated that anyone serving patients should receive a COVID vaccine.
• The claim of equal protection was rejected since the right to reject a vaccine is not regarded as a fundamental right and case law recognized the legitimate government interest in vaccinating health care providers, resulting in a justifiable difference in treatment between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals.

Compulsory vaccination was considered by SCOTUS in Jacobson v. Massachusetts in 1905 resulting in a ruling that schoolteachers were obliged to be vaccinated against smallpox.

The review of the case, written by Andrew Tauber of Winston and Strawn, LLP, relates to a state order.  Obviously, different situations would apply to hospitals, processing plants and other employment situations depending on justification and locality.                                        .