Attorneys for a Scripps Ranch Excessive College scholar who sued to problem the San Diego Unified College District’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate filed an emergency utility with the U.S. Supreme Court docket Friday.
Following rulings from a San Diego federal choose and the U.S. Ninth Circuit of Appeals which upheld the district’s mandate, attorneys for the coed recognized as Jill Doe in courtroom paperwork want to the Supreme Court docket to dam enforcement of the coverage.
Doe and her mother and father sued to dam the mandate on non secular grounds.
RELATED: Highschool scholar sues San Diego Unified over vaccine mandate
The district’s mandate holds that college students 16 years and older should obtain their second dose by Dec. 20 or be required to participate in distant studying by way of unbiased research.
By the beginning of the district’s second semester on Jan. 24, unvaccinated college students is not going to be allowed to proceed with in-person instruction except they’ve an permitted medical exemption.
Whereas the district’s plan permits for medical exemptions to the mandate, it doesn’t allow non secular or private perception exemptions.
Considered one of Doe’s attorneys, Paul Jonna, mentioned the district’s exempting college students on secular grounds, whereas prohibiting non secular exemptions, quantities to discrimination.
“In stark distinction to this scholar’s efficient expulsion from her college and sports activities group, the San Diego Unified College District exempts tens of 1000’s of this scholar’s classmates (and lots of of her academics) from the identical mandate for secular causes,” Jonna mentioned.
RELATED: Federal courtroom lifts injunction in opposition to SDUSD vaccine mandate
A ruling on the district’s mandate can also be anticipated quickly in a separate lawsuit filed in San Diego Superior Court docket by the native mother and father group Let Them Breathe, which is looking for a choice by the Dec. 20 second dose deadline.
San Diego Superior Court docket Choose John Meyer set a listening to for Dec. 20 on the matter, however was anticipated to problem a tentative ruling previous to the listening to date.