Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Federal Judge Strikes Down Biden’s Head Start Child Care Facility Vaccine and Mask Mandates

Federal Judge Strikes Down Biden’s Head Start Child Care Facility Vaccine and Mask Mandates

As Biden said, the pandemic is over.

A federal judge in Louisiana has just struck down a Biden administration mandate requiring staffers at Head Start child care facilities to be vaccinated and to wear masks.

U.S. District Judge Terry A. Doughty issued a permanent injunction against federal agencies enforcing Head Start vaccine and masking requirements.

In his ruling, Doughty found that the plaintiffs had satisfied the requirements to warrant a permanent injunction. He ruled that the plaintiffs — a group of Head Start teachers from across the country along with several state governments — faced a “substantial threat of irreparable injury” if the mandate wasn’t taken down.

“Plaintiff States will incur the increased cost of training and of enforcing the Head Start Mandate, will be unable to enforce their laws, and will have their police power encroached. The Court finds that this would be an irreparable injury,” Doughty wrote.

In December 2021, teacher Sandy Brick filed the lawsuit to stop the mandate and is represented by the national law firm Liberty Justice Center and the Louisiana-based Pelican Institute for Public Policy. Lawyers for these firms signal this is a big win for both the client and the country.

“Although President Biden recently declared that the ‘pandemic is over,’ the fight to restore Americans’ individual liberties is not,” said Daniel Suhr, managing attorney at the Liberty Justice Center.

“We will continue to fight for teachers like Sandy and the low-income students they serve until every illegal and unjustified mandate is wiped from the books. Today’s decision is a significant step toward undoing the injustice perpetrated against everyday Americans throughout the COVID-19 crisis.”

Sarah Harbison, general counsel at the Pelican Institute for Public Policy added, “Louisiana teacher Sandy Brick has been serving her students through adversity and uncertainty the last two years. Today, this decision vindicates her right to teach without sacrificing her freedom.”

The judge specifically noted that the agency violated the “major questions” doctrine in its policy.

Doughty also ruled that the mandate from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services made a “decision of vast economic and political significance.” The Supreme Court has previously ruled such a “major question” should be left for Congress to answer, he wrote.

“Congress has not clearly spoken to grant Agency Defendants the authority to impose the Head Start Mandate,” his opinion said. “Therefore, the Head Start Mandate violates the major questions doctrine.”

Other plaintiff states in the case are Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


WAY too late to make a difference.

As I said LAST YEAR when they started this bullshit, they knew they were illegal and unconstitutional, and they didn’t care.

The point was that they knew it was going to take so long for it to get struck down that a huge amount of people would be forced to take it or lose their jobs or get kicked out of school in the meantime, and when it got finally struck down there would be NO consequences for the blatantly unconstitutional actions.

Sometimes I hate being right.

    Otto Kringelein in reply to Olinser. | September 23, 2022 at 11:11 am

    And now perhaps the court could deal with the Biden regimes illegally withholding National Free Lunch Program funds to those school districts that don’t toe the Biden regimes ideological stance on LGB and trans issues.

    artichoke in reply to Olinser. | September 23, 2022 at 12:52 pm

    Is there a way there possibly could be consequences through the legal system? What sort of intent would have to be shown, or any at all? What would it take to attach personal liability or legal risk to administrators? Could they be found to have acted “ultra vires” in imposing these abusive practices?

The CoVaxxxers think that they can abort the baby, cannibalize her profitable parts, sequester her carbon pollutants, and have her, too. The People and “our Posterity” of the republic respond in no uncertain terms that their planned progression is not a viable choice.