On December 23, 2025, Health Freedom Defense Fund (HFDF), California Educators for Medical Freedom (CAEMF), and several individual plaintiffs petitioned the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) to review a case that raises one of the most consequential constitutional questions of our time: Do Americans possess the fundamental right to refuse unwanted medical treatment, even during a public health crisis?
A sweeping decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals dangerously ignores more than a century of Supreme Court jurisprudence and effectively strips courts of their duty to protect individual liberty. The ruling allows governments to impose mandatory medical interventions without meaningful judicial review, so long as officials invoke “public health.”
“For generations, Americans have relied on courts to balance public health needs with personal freedom,” said Scott Street, counsel for the plaintiffs. “The Ninth Circuit abandoned that balance, granting government officials virtually unchecked power over individuals’ bodies so long as they cite public health and say there is an emergency, regardless of the efficacy of their orders.”
When the Ninth Circuit cited Jacobson v. Massachusetts, a 1905 Supreme Court case involving smallpox vaccinations, it not only misconstrued Jacobson, it ignored how constitutional law has evolved over the past 120 years.
Contrary to the Ninth Circuit’s claim, Jacobson did not give governments unlimited authority to mandate medical treatment without evidence or accountability. Instead, as later Supreme Court decisions made clear, Jacobson applied a balancing test—weighing an individual’s liberty interest against the government’s actual, demonstrated need to protect public health.
