• News Categories
    ▼
    • Surveillance & Technology
    • U.S. News & Reports
    • International News
    • Finance
    • Defense & Security
    • Politics
    • Videos
  • Blog
  • Directory
  • Support Us
  • About
  • Contact

T-Room

The Best in Alternative News

  • News Categories
    • Surveillance & Technology
    • U.S. News & Reports
    • International News
    • Finance
    • Defense & Security
    • Politics
    • Videos
  • Blog
  • Directory
  • Support Us
  • About
  • Contact

October 11, 2021 at 8:05 pm

Federal Judge Denies ‘Natural Immunity’ Exists in Claim Challenging COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate…

Law_Covid_coronavirus
ParlerGabTruth Social

by Kyle Becker at Becker News

A federal judge has denied that natural immunity from prior Covid-19 infection is a legally justifiable reason to be exempted from vaccine mandates. The judge’s ruling on a plaintiff’s case against Michigan State University comes as even mainstream media outlets admit that natural immunity is not only at least equivalent, but is actually superior to vaccinated immunity.

The court’s ruling was reported by the Epoch Times on Sunday:

An employee at the school, Jeanna Norris, filed a lawsuit against the mandate and asked a judge to intervene on the basis that she had already contracted COVID-19 and recovered. She presented two antibody tests showing her previous infection, and her doctors told her that she didn’t need to get the vaccine at this time.

Despite her natural immunity, Norris faces termination from the university for not complying with the school’s mandate that all students and staff get the shot unless they have a medical or religious exemption.

U.S. District Judge Paul Maloney, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, declined her lawsuit. The mandate, Maloney said, didn’t violate her fundamental rights and pointed to a 1905 Supreme Court ruling.

“This Court must apply the law from the Supreme Court: Jacobson essentially applied rational basis review and found that the vaccine mandate was rational in ‘protect[ing] the public health and public safety,’” Judge Maloney said in his order. “The Court cannot ignore this binding precedent.”

The Boston Globe, however, recently reported on the “weakness” in the argument for vaccine mandates.

“In 1905, the Supreme Court ruled that Massachusetts could fine people who would not take a smallpox vaccine,” the Boston Globe recently reported. “That case established a precedent for a 1922 case, Zucht v. King, that allowed San Antonio to mandate vaccines for all public and private school students. More recently, the Supreme Court cited the Jacobson case in its decisions about whether to permit governors in California and New York to place occupancy limits on religious services during a pandemic.”

“The Jacobson ruling gives…

ParlerGabTruth Social
Continue Reading
This website lives off the kindness of your donations. If you would like to support The T-Room please visit our PayPal.

Editor’s Picks

Happy Independence Day!

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act: A Comprehensive Holland & Knight Analysis…

H.R.1 – One Big Beautiful Bill Act…

AFTER ‘8 HOURS OF HOGWASH’ FROM REP JEFFRIES, HOUSE REPUBLICANS PASS TRUMP’S ‘BIG BEAUTIFUL BILL’ – 218 – 214…

Paramount, Parent Company of CBS, Settles Trump Lawsuit for $16 Million over Election Interference After Editing Kamala Harris’s Answers in 60 Minutes Interview…

Any publication posted at The T-Room and/or opinions expressed therein do not necessarily reflect the views of The T-Room. Such publications and all information within the publications (e.g. titles, dates, statistics, conclusions, sources, opinions, etc) are solely the responsibility of the author of the article, not The T-Room.

Twitter Icon

View Old Archives

Copyright © 2025 T-Room

Site by Creative Visual Design