In Curtis v. Inslee (9th Cir. 2025) 154 F.4th 678, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of § 1983 and 14th Amendment challenges to a COVID-19 vaccine mandate, issuing two key holdings. First, the court held that federal statutes governing "investigational drugs" (like the FDCA and PREP Act) do not create a private right of action enforceable under § 1983. Second, it held the mandate did not violate the 14th Amendment, ruling that at-will employment is not a protected property interest (barring the procedural due process claim) and that public health concerns easily satisfy rational basis review under Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905) 197 U.S. 11 (barring the substantive due process claim).

This decision reinforces the high bar for constitutional challenges to public health mandates and confirms that the emergency status of a vaccine does not provide employees with a private right to sue under federal drug laws.

In Damiano v. Grants Pass School District No. 7 (9th Cir. 2025) 140 F.4th 1117, the Ninth Circuit vacated summary judgment for a public employer, clarifying and lowering the evidentiary bar for employees on several key claims.

For First Amendment retaliation, the court held the district failed to prove sufficient actual or predicted disruption under the Pickering balance test to justify its actions as a matter of law. For the Fourteenth Amendment, the court held that alleging viewpoint-based disparate treatment is a cognizable equal protection claim, even without protected class membership. Finally, for Title VII, it held plaintiffs do not need to identify comparators at the prima facie stage and can instead show "circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination."