Title: A New Dawn in Policy: The Legal Battle Over Vaccine Mandates and Its Broader Implications
In a recent episode of "Broken Truth" hosted by John Davidson, attorneys Scott Street and Warner Mendenhall discussed significant developments in their ongoing legal battle against vaccine mandates, particularly in light of a new policy change by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and their previous lawsuit against the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Background of the Legal Challenges:
Lawsuit Against the CDC: Previously, Mendenhall and Street, with attorney Leslie Manookian and the Health Freedom Defense Fund, filed a lawsuit against the CDC to challenge the mandate that immigrants seeking green cards must provide proof of COVID-19 vaccination. The lawsuit argued that this requirement was unsupported by legal or scientific standards, particularly since COVID-19 was not considered a vaccine-preventable disease under current legal definitions (Broken Truth TV).
Legal Arguments: The core of their argument was that the mandate was arbitrary, lacked scientific backing, and violated constitutional rights by compelling individuals to undergo medical procedures without sufficient legal or health justification.
Recent Policy Change by USCIS:
New Policy Announcement: Effective January 22, 2025, the USCIS has waived the requirement for applicants for adjustment of status to lawful permanent residents to provide documentation of having received the COVID-19 vaccination. This policy shift means no Requests for Evidence or Notices of Intent to Deny will be issued for lack of vaccination proof, and no application will be denied on this basis.
Impact on the Case and Broader Implications:
Policy Shift: This change by USCIS directly aligns with the arguments made in the lawsuit against the CDC, suggesting a broader acknowledgment that previous policies might have overstepped legal and scientific boundaries. Scott Street noted this as a victory, signaling a move towards policy-making that is more aligned with legal and scientific evidence.
Continued Legal Pursuit: Despite this policy change, the legal team emphasized that their broader objectives, including seeking acknowledgment from the CDC that COVID-19 does not meet the legal criteria for a vaccine-preventable disease, remain unfulfilled. This could set precedents for how vaccine mandates are viewed legally.
Broader Legal and Political Context:
Agency Power: Warner Mendenhall highlighted how these legal battles reflect a reevaluation of agency power, with the Loper decision playing a significant role in redefining the legislative boundaries of agencies like the CDC and USCIS. This policy shift might be interpreted as an alignment with this new legal landscape.
Public Health Policy: The case and the new policy underscore the necessity for public health policies to be grounded in robust scientific evidence and legal frameworks, ensuring they do not infringe upon individual rights or contravene legal standards.
Political Reflection: The conversation also touched on the political ramifications, with Street, a former Democrat, expressing disillusionment with how the party has managed health crises, attributing it to a shift away from traditional democratic principles. The policy change was seen as a step towards reclaiming these values.
Future Actions and Challenges:
Ongoing Litigation: Even with the USCIS policy adjustment, the legal team is committed to continuing their fight, aiming to influence future health policy decisions and ensure that they reflect both scientific accuracy and legal integrity.
Accountability: The episode stressed the importance of accountability, with mentions of the need to hold officials and agencies responsible for decisions made during the health crisis, potentially affecting how future public health emergencies are managed.
Public Engagement: The dialogue concluded with a call for active public involvement, through organizations like Freedom Council, to ensure government accountability and influence health policy in a direction that respects both science and civil liberties.
This scenario represents a pivotal moment in the U.S.'s approach to health policy, legal rights, and political accountability, potentially paving the way for significant reforms in how public health directives are formulated and enforced.
Demand Media Tell Your Stories
Crimes committed during the COVID-19 pandemic have not been properly reported. Click this button to submit audience feedback to all the major networks & studios demanding that the stories they omitted be told.
Add your name to the end of the email and send it. Thank you!
Check out our documentary “Epidemic of Fraud”. Learn how the people who helped bring fentanyl to the market tried to convince the American people that a drug similar to tonic water was deadly. Watch now.
Share this post