NY State Supreme Court Judge Strikes Down Covid Vaccine Requirement for Healthcare Workers

Last week, Children’s Health Defense won a lawsuit in the state of New York on behalf of healthcare workers who were subjected to Covid vaccine requirements. Judge Gerard Neri of the New York Supreme Court overturned this requirement, stating that the New York Department of Health "blatantly violated" its legal authority.

Watch “What’s Wrong with the NY State Ruling on Vaccine “Mandates”

I applaud the fact that legal action is being taken and that judges are ruling in accordance with the law. This is undoubtedly something to celebrate, so I want to be clear that I support the legal proceedings being taken to halt these unlawful and illegitimate measures.

While I recognize this as a “partial” win, I believe that the lawsuit did not go far enough and that the Judge (intentionally or unintentionally) neglected to rule on a very important aspect of the lawsuit, and as I was reading the press release, I noticed several red flags.

Read the Judge’s decision → here ←

Children’s Health Defense Press Release

“NY State (NYS) Supreme Court Judge Gerard Neri held that the COVID-19 vaccine mandate for healthcare workers is now “null, void, and of no effect.”

Sure, let’s give that a round of polite applause. 

Before I reveal why the ruling is only a “partial” win in my eyes, let me just say that over the past few years, I've worked with numerous individuals who have experienced discrimination in the state of New York. It was no easy feat, but I had some good success with individuals who worked for the New York State Department of Health. I should also mention that I don't use the word "mandate" because it lacks legal authority in the absence of a court order. 

Remember: No health department has the authority to mandate you to do anything; only a court of law has that power.

Read my previous substack about “mandates” → here ←

Here’s the first statement that rubbed me the wrong way:

“The court held that the NYS Dept. of Health lacked the authority to impose such a mandate as this power is reserved to the state legislature.”

Yes, it’s true that the Health Department does not have the authority to make laws; that authority is solely reserved to the state legislature. There is, however, a distinction between ruling that the imposition of a "vaccine mandate" is a power reserved to the state legislature versus ruling that the health department has no legal authority to impose this at all and that any such law enacted by the legislature would also be "null and void" because it directly contradicts both the United States Constitution and the New York Constitution. This is why I am not entirely supportive of it, and I reserve some judgment because, in my opinion, the lawsuit did not go far enough.

It seems to me (and I've done studies of prior court decisions over the past couple of years) that the judge is sort of winking at the legislature and throwing the ball back in their court, meaning that it would be up to the state legislature to draft and approve such legislation. We all understand that the legislature has the authority to enact laws, but only laws that do not conflict with the Constitution. States like New York and California, on the other hand, are doing just that. They are trampling all over our constitutional rights, and we will need more legal action to repeal these unconstitutional laws. As I previously stated, the difference between ruling that something (as unconstitutional, unethical, immoral, and illegitimate) such as "vaccine mandates" is a power reserved to the legislature versus completely prohibiting that action by any entity is significant. I would like the court to rule that no law can ever be enacted to force anyone to undergo any medical intervention against their will.

Here’s the next statement that was equally as troubling to me:

“Furthermore, the court found that the mandate was “arbitrary and capricious” as COVID-19 vaccines do not stop transmission, vitiating any rational basis for a mandate.”

The problem with this statement is that it opens the door for a time in the future for scientists to prove that the cocktails work according to their standards. Based on this ruling, the requirements could be justified and enforced if the vaccines are proven to “stop transmission.”

You can see why this is troubling.

Something else about this lawsuit was very curious to me. According to the Children’s Health Defense, they (CHD) “financed this lawsuit on behalf of Medical Professionals for Informed Consent and several individual healthcare workers. Sujata Gibson, lead attorney, said, “This is a huge win for New York healthcare workers, who have been deprived of their livelihoods for more than a year. This is also a huge win for all New Yorkers, who are facing dangerous and unprecedented healthcare worker shortages throughout New York State.”

I had never heard of this organization, so I did a little more digging. I wanted to know: Who are the Medical Professionals for Informed Consent? What is this organization?

I did notice the spelling of organization was “organisation” which is a British spelling. There is not a lot of information about who they are on the website, but the founding organizations are the Alliance for Natural Health International and the UK Medical Freedom Alliance. I did find it strange that these primarily British organizations would be behind a lawsuit in New York, but maybe some Healthy Americans can take a deeper look at PROMIC. I did notice that ANH has a presence in the United States, and on the surface, they appear to be making a positive impact, and I am all for health autonomy and transparency.

As you know, critical thinking and digging deeper requires that you do not take things at face value, but you research the “who, what, where, when and why” of things in order to draw your own conclusions as to what is really going on, and if there are any hidden agenda (that might not be too hidden, if you just dig deeper).

That brings me to the final part of this story, which is also troubling to me:

“CHD President Mary Holland stated, “We are thrilled by this critical win against a COVID vaccine mandate, correctly finding that any such mandate at this stage, given current knowledge is arbitrary. We hope that this decision will continue the trend towards lifting these dangerous and unwarranted vaccine mandates throughout the country.”

Amid good news, it's easy to overlook statements like this, but this caught my attention right away. Mary Holland's comments make me wonder… Were these requirements justified at any point ever? Does this imply that it will be suitable at some point in the future? Is she alluding to the idea that "current knowledge” of “the science" is a relevant factor in justifying these requirements? The protection and preservation of our God-given rights is not subject to the current scientific "consensus," nor are our rights subject to infringement at the whim of any corporate or government entity.

One thing I did like about the ruling was that the judge criticized the state's definition of "fully vaccinated," which was ridiculous and absurd.

A term which is defined at the whim of an entity, subject to change without a moment’s notice contains all the hallmarks of “absurdity” and is no definition at all.

Read the Judge’s decision → here ←

My main issue with the state of New York is their blatant discrimination and persecution of people of faith. They have targeted those in a Constitutionally protected class exclusively and outlawed provisions for religious exemptions. I would have liked to see the judge rule that the removal of religious exemptions for the vaccine was also a violation of the law. The judge's failure to address this issue entirely was disappointing.

I am always in favor of action, and I applaud and celebrate these small victories along the way. If this allows healthcare workers to keep their jobs or be reinstated and work as pure-bloods, I am grateful that this legal action is proceeding. It's possible that the things I noticed were merely oversights, but we must constantly be vigilant and read between the lines to avoid accepting anything at face value.