Category Archives: Legal challengers

A string of Religious Exemption Legal Victories 2024

‘Just huge’: 10 favorable decisions by 7 circuit courts of appeals in last 3 months

Since May, at least 10 appellate courts have issued decisions in favor of employees who sued their employers over COVID-19 religious or moral exemptions, actions or policies.

READ MORE…

 

MEXICO: Big Win! Courts Uphold the Ban on Mexican GMO Corn and Glyphosate

After a 4-year legal battle, Monsanto drops lawsuit against Mexico’s GM corn ban

In what is being called a significant victory for Mexico, Monsanto has withdrawn its legal challenge against the 2020 presidential decree aimed at banning glyphosate and genetically modified (GM) corn for human consumption.

READ MORE…

 

VICTORY: Ninth Court Shoots down Jacobson vs. Massachusetts

The court held that “[t]his misapplies Jacobson,” which “did not involve a claim in which the compelled vaccine was ‘designed to reduce symptoms in the infected vaccine recipient rather than to prevent transmission and infection.”’ Jacobson does not, the majority concluded, extend to “forced medical treatment” for the benefit of the recipient.

VLA Comment:  Brilliant!  In Jacabson vs. Mass. there was a State interest that compelled the decision to mandate the Small Pox vaccines because it allegedly  “prevented the spread”.  The ninth district found that the Covid 19 vaccine did not prevent the spread of the disease but was only a treatment for individuals to mitigate the symptoms.  Hence Jacobson did not apply.

READ DECISION

Ninth Circuit Court Rules Correctly COVID-19 mRNA Injections Are Not Legitimate State Interest Due To Being A Treatment, Not A Preventative | This Is All We Need To DESTROY WHO & FDA

Supreme Court Decision 9-0 Religious Freedom

If you don’t think this is significant, consider that virtually every large company in the United States is mandating that its employees take part in some sort of “Pride Month” event.

As long as the accommodation does not significantly increase the employer’s costs, employees should not worry about being forced to violate their religious belief.

The fact that this is a unanimous ruling is also a seriously big deal.

The Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in Groff v. DeJoy reinforced the First Amendment’s protections for religious liberty, making clear that no employer may discriminate on the basis of an employee’s religion.

For many years, businesses were free to refuse employees’ requests for religious accommodations or even fire them if doing so would result in more than a minimal, or “de minimis,” financial burden.

Christians who observe the Sabbath have found themselves unemployed as a result.

The Supreme Court just ruled last week that businesses can’t refuse to make reasonable accommodations because of the small cost or inconvenience to the business.

The Supreme Court found that employers must make reasonable religious accommodations under Title VII of the United States Constitution unless doing so would “result in substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business.”

VLA COMMENT:  I wonder if colleges are in this same boat!

J&J….Bid to Delay Lawsuits Alleging “Tylenol Caused Autism”

 

The Tylenol lawsuits allege that the makers of products containing acetaminophen (also known as paracetamol), including J&J, were negligent in not warning the general public — including pregnant women — about the risks posed by the drug to fetal development and in encouraging their widespread use during pregnancy.

The lawsuits also allege that retailers, including Walmart, CVS, Walgreens and others, falsely advertised products containing acetaminophen as being safe for pregnant women and did not warn them about the risks posed to fetal development.

These products have been marketed as safe for pregnant women since the 1950s, despite a significant number of peer-reviewed studies finding that acetaminophen poses serious risks to pregnant women and unborn children.

READ MORE…