Statement on 2/18/2022 regarding the U.S. Supreme Court's Denial without Prejudice:

We filed an application for emergency relief with the U.S. Supreme Court in this case on December 10, 2021. At the time, our client was just weeks away from being denied admission to school, and kicked out of sports, unless she provided proof that she had complied with SDUSD’s illegal vaccine mandate – which required her to violate her sincere religious beliefs. Meanwhile, the vast majority of our client’s fellow classmates remained exempt from SDUSD’s mandate for various secular reasons. On December 20, 2021, a state court judge struck down SDUSD’s mandate on other legal theories – but that judgment was later stayed by the California Court of Appeal. However, even though SDUSD could have attempted to reinstate their vaccine mandate as of February 1, the SDUSD Board nevertheless voted on February 8, 2022, not to implement the vaccine mandate for in person instruction until the fall 2022 semester, at the earliest. SDUSD will meet on February 22, 2022, to discuss whether and to what extent to impose the mandate for extracurricular activities, including sports.

Citing these “changed circumstances,” late on Friday, February 18, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court denied our clients’ application for emergency relief. The full text of the order is as follows:

The application for injunctive relief presented to Justice Kagan and by her referred to the Court is denied in light of changed circumstances. Because respondents have delayed implementation of the challenged policy, and because they have not settled on the form any policy will now take, emergency relief is not warranted at this time. Applicants’ alternative request for a writ of certiorari before judgment and a stay pending resolution is denied for the same reason. The Court’s denial is without prejudice to applicants seeking a new injunction if circumstances warrant.

We are pleased with the current posture of this case for several reasons. First, our client’s goal was to attend school in person, and play sports, without being forced to comply with an illegal vaccine mandate – and she can do that for now. Second, the Supreme Court made clear that it is watching this case and that our client can come back and seek emergency relief in the future should the need arise. Thus, our legal team will be poised and ready to seek further relief at the Supreme Court if and when SDUSD reinstates all or part of their unconstitutional vaccine mandate.