SACRAMENTO, Calif. (CN) — A federal judge on Tuesday indicated he was leaning against imposing a preliminary injunction in a California school vaccine mandate case, saying the plaintiffs had no standing because it appeared no one had been harmed.
U.S. District Judge Dale Drozd also said it appeared that Brave and Free Santa Cruz, one of the plaintiffs, hadn’t exhausted all administrative means before suing. That also weighed on the judge as he considers denying the injunction.
The Barack Obama appointee made no decision Tuesday, saying he’d soon issue a written ruling.
Brave and Free Santa Cruz initially made a broad challenge to California’s school vaccine mandates, later amending the complaint to focus on students using individualized education programs, or IEPs. Brave and Free Santa Cruz claims students under those programs are exempt from immunization requirements. It’s sued Tomas Aragon, director of the California Department of Public Health, Governor Gavin Newsom, the Gilroy Unified School District and others.
Individualized education programs provide a path for students with disabilities, which can include autism, deafness, and language issues, or social or behavioral issues. In 2022, some 800,000 students, or 13%, had a program.
Drozd said it didn’t appear Brave and Free Santa Cruz had properly argued that any plaintiff had been injured by school policy.
“That’s where my mind is right now,” he said. “I don’t see how any injury has been alleged for standing for any defendant.”
Attorney Richard Fox, representing the plaintiffs, said some parents were told by school districts that they must comply with vaccine mandates, regardless of if their students had an individualized education program. Schools had threatened parents while providing no proper, written documentation.
Fox called that lack of notice the injury, adding that he could amend the complaint if needed.
“But can you?” Drozd questioned. “It’s a little unclear to me why you haven’t, if you can.”
The judge added that he saw no evidence of a school district excluding any student based on their vaccination status. Drozd saw a text message that mentioned vaccination, but said it appeared the plaintiffs were trying to construct an injury out of it.
Pivoting to his second point, Drozd said he intended to rule that Fox’s clients hadn’t exhausted their administrative remedies before filing suit.
Attorney Katherine Grainger, a deputy attorney general who represents Aragon and Newsom, argued in court documents that parents are entitled to a due process hearing after filing a complaint. Only after that process can someone file suit.
Grainger also argued in court filings that the plaintiffs can’t justify an injunction, as they haven’t shown any student has faced exclusion from school because they weren’t vaccinated.
Additionally, the plaintiffs haven’t shown that Aragon or his department has a policy that would lead to a student’s expulsion, Grainger wrote. That makes the case a hypothetical dispute and one not ready for a judge.
The plaintiffs want Drozd to tell all California school districts that students who use individualized education programs are exempt from mandatory vaccinations, Grainger wrote. However, the judge has no power to interfere in how a state agency carries out its duties.
Nearing the hearing’s end, Drozd asked whether Brave and Free Santa Cruz had any members who were parents of an unvaccinated child who used an individualized education plan and lived in California. Fox said he’s identified two or three members who were grandparents, but was uncertain if any were parents.
“I think the court has an understanding of this case,” Grainger said when given a chance to argue.