Aila Curtis, et al. v. Jay Inslee, former Governor of Washington, et al.

The Ninth Circuit held that Petitioners’ substantive due process claims were foreclosed by Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) and Health Freedom Defense Fund, Inc. v. Carvalho, 148 F.4th 1020 (9th Cir. 2025). Because Carvalho, pending as No. 25-765,* cites the present case as an example of the detrimental effects of the Carvalho ruling, the Court may wish to consider this case in conjunction with Carvalho. Additionally, Sweeney v. University of Colorado Hospital Authority, No. 25-1055, involves a materially similar factual and legal backdrop and identical procedural errors by both the district and circuit courts as those detailed herein. The Court may wish to consider these petitions in tandem to address the recurring issues of party presentation and premature merits adjudication at the pleading stage. Question 1: Does Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) limit a court’s review of governmentmandated investigational medical treatments to whether the mandate is rationally related to a legitimate government objective, or does Jacobson first require the court to determine if the scope and means of the mandate constitute a legitimate exercise of the police power of the state that does not infringe upon the federal domain? * This Court issued a call for response on February 5, 2026.