Medical freedom group fails to get around California school vaccine mandate

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (CN) — A group espousing medical freedom failed on Wednesday in its attempt to have a federal judge force a California school to admit a child who didn’t meet vaccination requirements, with the judge citing a lack of irreparable harm as the reason for the denial.

The Free Now Foundation, which has said it champions medical freedom and parental rights, and Brave and Free Santa Cruz have filed suit against the principal of Foothill Technology High School, Governor Gavin Newsom and others over the state’s school vaccine mandate. They said the suit’s main purpose is to stop all enforcement of state law that requires school children to receive vaccines.

However, the plaintiffs this week filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction seeking to stop the high school from prohibiting a child from attending class based on his immunization status.

On Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Daniel Calabretta denied the motion for a temporary restraining order. He also ordered the plaintiffs to file a new motion for preliminary injunction within two weeks or explain why it shouldn’t be denied as well.

“Plaintiffs’ motion for temporary restraining order must be denied as it does not address whether plaintiff minor child #1 faces irreparable harm in the absence of a temporary restraining order …” the Joe Biden appointee wrote.

The foundation argued that it should have gotten the restraining order because a balance of hardships and equities tipped in its client’s favor. Also, excluding the child from school significantly harms him, and it’s in the public interest to have children attend school.

While Calabretta wrote that he was skeptical about the arguments the foundation made, he didn’t have to consider them because it failed to address the factor of irreparable harm.

“Plaintiffs’ failure to establish that plaintiff minor child #1 will suffer irreparable harm is fatal to their motion,” the judge wrote, adding later: “The complete failure to address one of these prongs mandates the denial of plaintiffs’ motion.”

Attorneys on both sides couldn’t be reached for comment by publication time.

The motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction hinged on the Ventura Unified School District student’s attempts to return to class after the 2024 holiday break.

The student had to report early this year to school administration, where he was told he couldn’t return until he complied with immunization policies. It denied the mother’s request for a medical exemption and began sending the family truancy notices, the foundation argued.

The student, parents and a family friend arrived at school on March 10, telling administrators that the child was there to attend class. However, he was again turned away.

The next day, the foundation’s attorney sent a letter to the school district’s counsel. The attorney wrote that the child would be added to existing litigation and that the school district would be added as a defendant.

That existing case also includes children who can’t attend school because of their vaccination status.

Some parents in that suit claim their children were injured by vaccines. Others don’t want their children to have any more state-mandated vaccines.

Members of the Free Now Foundation, these parents have chosen to let the foundation act as the plaintiff in this suit.

Brave and Free Santa Cruz, in a mission statement, said that it’s fighting the World Economic Forum’s “Great Reset” and 2030 Agenda.

That agenda, stemming from the United Nations, seeks to end hunger and poverty, among other aims.

“We are active locally to stop the damaging and unconstitutional mandates occurring under the pretext of the Covid-19 pandemic, part of the globalist’s ‘Great Reset’ plan for totalitarian control and population reduction,” the group said in its mission statement.

Brave and Free Santa Cruz also has a related suit in the Eastern District of California, in which it challenged the state’s vaccine mandates for students using individualized education programs. It argued that students in those programs are exempt from the mandates.

It sought a preliminary injunction in that case, which was denied in January.