You have /5 articles left.
Sign up for a free account or log in.

A federal appeals court has rejected an appeal of a district court's ruling denying an injunction against an Indiana University rule requiring all students to be vaccinated against COVID-19.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit used language in rejecting the appeal that strongly backed Indiana University.

Writing for the panel, Judge Frank Easterbrook wrote, "People who do not want to be vaccinated may go elsewhere. Many universities require vaccination against SARS-CoV-2, but many others do not. Plaintiffs have ample educational opportunities."

He added, "Each university may decide what is necessary to keep other students safe in a congregate setting. Health exams and vaccinations against other diseases … are common requirements of higher education. Vaccination protects not only the vaccinated persons but also those who come into contact with them, and at a university close contact is inevitable."

James Bopp Jr., the lawyer for the eight students seeking the injunction, told The Indianapolis Star that he would file an appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court.

The judges noted that Indiana has exemptions for religious or medical reasons. Further, they noted that "six of the eight plaintiffs have claimed the religious exception, and a seventh is eligible for it."

In addition, the judges noted that a university may do things to students because they are students, such as charging them tuition. "Undergraduates must part with at least $11,000 a year (in-state tuition) even though Indiana could not summarily confiscate that sum from all residents of college age."

The appeals court also said the First Amendment does not protect the students from the requirement. "The First Amendment means that a state cannot tell anyone what to read or write, but a state university may demand that students read things they prefer not to read and write things they prefer not to write. A student must read what a professor assigns, even if they student deems the books heretical, and must write exams or essays as required. A student who is told to analyze the role of nihilism in Dostoevsky's The Possessed but who submits an essay about Iago's motivations in Othello will flunk."

"If conditions of higher education may include surrendering property and following instructions about what to read and write, it is hard to see a greater problem with medical conditions that help all students remain safe when learning," the court ruled. "A university will have trouble operating when each student fears that everyone else may be spreading disease. Few people want to return to remote higher education -- and we do not think the Constitution forces the distance-learning approach on a university that believes vaccination (or masks and frequent testing of the unvaccinated) will make in-person operations safe enough."

Next Story

Written By

More from Physical & Mental Health