The panel affirmed the district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim of an action brought by former at-will employees of a nonprofit health care system (Employees) alleging various statutory, constitutional, and state law claims arising from then-Governor Jay Inslee’s August 2021 proclamation requiring healthcare workers in Washington to be vaccinated against COVID-19.

The panel first held that none of the Employees’ statutory and non-constitutional claims alleged specific and definite rights enforceable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The panel therefore rejected Employees’ claims based on 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3, 10 U.S.C. § 980, 42 U.S.C. § 247d-6, Article VII of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 45 C.F.R. Part 46, the Belmont Report, the Federal Wide Assurance Agreement, the COVID-19 Vaccination Program Provider Agreement, and Emergency Use Authorizations.

Addressing the Employees’ constitutional claims, the panel held that neither the Spending Clause nor the Supremacy Clause provided Employees with a federal right enforceable under § 1983. Employees’ claims under the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause failed. The substantive due process claim alleging the right to refuse unwanted investigational drugs was foreclosed by Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905), and Health Freedom Def. Fund, Inc. v. Carvalho, 148 F.4th 1020 (9th Cir. 2025) (en banc). The procedural due process claim failed because, among other things, the Employees’ at-will employment was not a constitutionally protected property interest. Employees’ Equal Protection Clause claim, asserting a claim of discrimination against a non-suspect class, failed because the mandate here survived rational-basis review.

Because amendment of the federal claims would be futile, the panel held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend the complaint. The panel affirmed the dismissal of the state law claims alleging breach of contract, employment tort, outrage, and invasion of privacy against the Governor. As for the state-law claims against PeaceHealth, the panel upheld the district court’s discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2025/10/06/24-1869.pdf