Pearson v. Shriners Challenges Coercive Vaccine Mandates

Washington, DC - September 23, 2025

On September 19, 2025, Dr. Simone Gold and the AFLDS legal team filed an amici curiae brief with the United States Supreme Court in support of the Petitioners in Pearson v. Shriners Hospitals for Children (25-204). The Petitioners are seeking reversal of a Fifth Circuit ruling after being terminated for refusing COVID-19 injections that were coercively mandated as a condition of employment.

The case centers on whether employers may lawfully force employees to accept experimental COVID-19 shots under threat of job loss. The Petitioners, Jeri Pearson and several former employees, were terminated by the Respondent, Shriners Hospitals for Children, after refusing the injections. They brought suit in federal court, arguing that the mandate violated informed consent protections, constitutional rights, and federal and state civil and criminal laws and regulations. The district court dismissed their claims, and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that dismissal. The Petition now before the U.S. Supreme Court asks for reversal and recognition that coercive medical mandates cannot override the fundamental right to bodily autonomy.

America’s Frontline Doctors maintains that the COVID-19 mRNA injections never received full FDA approval and were only available under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA). Far from being safe and effective, these experimental products have been tied to more than 38,000 deaths and countless serious injuries reported to VAERS.

Forcing employees to submit to these injections under threat of termination constitutes medical battery and violates longstanding federal protections for human subjects. AFLDS further contends that the lower courts’ refusal to intervene conflicts with Supreme Court precedent blocking federal vaccine mandates and sets a dangerous precedent of normalizing coercive medical experimentation on American workers.

“These unconstitutional, irrational, and medically dangerous mandates should be rejected,” said AFLDS attorney David Dalia, Counsel of Record on the brief. “The Constitution does not allow employers to override fundamental human rights under the guise of public health. Informed consent must be voluntary, free of coercion, and rooted in full disclosure. No one should ever have to choose between their livelihood and their life.”

“This case draws a line that cannot be crossed,” said Dr. Gold. “Your body is not the property of your employer, your government, or any pharmaceutical company. If Americans can be coerced into taking experimental injections to keep a job, then freedom is already lost. The Supreme Court must act to restore what is right.”

AFLDS maintains that the Supreme Court’s review is urgently needed to protect the constitutional right to refuse medical treatment, the doctor-patient relationship, and the principle of informed consent.

Stay tuned for further updates on this case and other AFLDS legal initiatives defending medical freedom.

# # #

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, Communications Director | Media@AFLDS.org