Asks Supreme Court to Review Coercive Medical Mandates 

Washington, DC – April 28, 2026 

On April 24, 2026, Dr. Simone Gold and the AFLDS legal team filed an amici curiae brief with the United States Supreme Court for both Curtis v. Inslee (25-1119) and Horsley v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (25-1203) supporting the Petitioners’ requests for writs of certiorari and reversal of the Ninth Circuit’s decisions.

The Petitioners in both cases are healthcare workers who were terminated after refusing COVID-19 injections that were required as a condition of employment. In Curtis v. Inslee, the Respondents include Washington Governor Jay Inslee and a healthcare system (PeaceHealth) who enforced a statewide COVID shot mandate. In Horsley v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, the Respondents include Kaiser Foundation Hospitals and California state officials who enforced similar policies.

AFLDS is asking the Supreme Court to grant certiorari in both cases and determine whether government actors and affiliated institutions may lawfully condition employment on the acceptance of investigational medical products. If left unreviewed, the Ninth Circuit’s rulings permit coercive mandates to stand without strict judicial scrutiny, even where fundamental constitutional rights are implicated.

These cases arise from lower court decisions dismissing the claims at the pleading stage. The Ninth Circuit erred in holding that fundamental constitutional rights such as the right to refuse unwanted medical treatments and the right of bodily integrity were not “well established” for purposes of 42 U.S.C. §1983 liability. The Ninth Circuit further erred in finding that mRNA injection mandates survived rational basis review under the Jacobson and Carvalho cases, because it was “rational” for the state to conclude (wrongly) that the experimental COVID-19 injections protected other people. However, this is a false assumption, as solid research now proves that the experimental COVID-19 injections do not protect other people. It was irrational for the court to accept and rely upon false information. The mRNA injection mandates would never survive the higher level of strict scrutiny required by the landmark Cruzan decision.

The Petitioners challenged the mandates as violations of their constitutional rights, including bodily integrity, due process, and the right to refuse unwanted medical treatment. The lower courts dismissed both cases before full factual development, effectively shielding government-imposed mandates from meaningful review.

AFLDS maintains that these cases present clear constitutional violations. Conditioning employment on the acceptance of investigational medical products, particularly under federal frameworks that require voluntary informed consent, exceeds the lawful authority of state actors and nullifies fundamental rights. These cases reflect a growing pattern across federal courts and demand resolution at the highest level.

Further, AFLDS contends that federal law governing investigational drugs preempts state efforts to impose coercive mandates. When refusal results in termination, the right to informed consent is rendered meaningless.

“This is not a narrow employment dispute, it is a direct challenge to the constitutional limits on government power,” said AFLDS attorney David Dalia. “The Ninth Circuit has granted state actors authority to impose dangerous investigational medical treatments which do not protect other people while ignoring fundamental constitutional rights, federal law and the Supremacy Clause. When the government can condition a person’s livelihood on submission to an unwanted medical intervention, informed consent no longer exists. The Court should not allow this overreach to stand.”

Dr. Simone Gold, Founder and President of America’s Frontline Doctors, added, “These healthcare workers did what every person has the right to do, they made their own medical decisions. For that, they lost their livelihoods. Our rights do not come from the government, and they do not disappear when you go to work. If the government can condition your livelihood on a medical decision, the right to informed consent is gone.” 

These cases present an opportunity for the Supreme Court to restore constitutional limits on government authority, reaffirm the supremacy of federal law, and protect the fundamental right of individuals to make their own medical decisions.

Stay tuned for further updates on these cases and our ongoing efforts to defend medical freedom and constitutional rights nationwide.

# # #

About AFLDS

We are the Nation's independent authority on ethical and transparent standards in science, health, and human rights. We provide individuals with unbiased and accurate information from the world's top experts in medicine and law so you can be empowered with facts to protect your rights, take care of your health, and safeguard your future. Visit AFLDS.org

Media Contact Lisa Alexander, Executive Director | Media@AFLDS.org