Never mind about the science anymore when it comes to medicine, because the courts are now declaring that government officials can force Americans to take medical treatments based solely on what the officials "believe" might help. It's faith-based medicine these days, but your religion, ironically, has nothing to do with your say in whether you have to take it or not.

In a deeply controversial decision, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that government officials can mandate medical treatments based solely on what they believe will help public health — regardless of whether there is evidence the treatment actually works. The case arose from a lawsuit filed by Los Angeles school employees who lost their jobs for refusing to comply with the district's COVID-19 shot mandate. These employees argued the shots did not prevent infection or transmission, making the mandate unjustifiable under public health law.

Court Upholds Mandates Based on Belief, Not Proof – The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that government officials can impose medical treatments based on what they believe might help public health, even if there's no evidence the treatments actually work. The case involved Los Angeles school employees fired for refusing COVID shots.

Majority vs. Dissenting Views – Judge Bennett wrote that the constitutionality of mandates depends on what officials "could have rationally concluded" about a treatment's benefits, not whether it actually works. Dissenting Judge Lee warned the ruling grants the government "carte blanche" to mandate treatments as long as they claim a public health purpose.

Potential for Expansive Government Power – Critics argue this precedent could allow mandates for psychiatric drugs, diets, or other medical interventions without proof of effectiveness, as long as officials say they believe it promotes public health.

Key Legal Distinction Ignored – Plaintiffs argued COVID shots act more like symptom-reducing treatments than traditional vaccines that stop transmission. The court dismissed this difference, effectively granting government broad power to define and mandate interventions under emergency powers.

Federal court rules government can mandate medical treatments based on beliefs, not scientific facts

The court, however, dismissed that argument entirely. Writing for the majority, Judge Bennett stated that according to the precedent set in Jacobson v. Massachusetts, the constitutionality of a vaccine mandate depends not on scientific proof of its effectiveness, but on whether lawmakers could have "rationally concluded" it would protect public health. In other words, the court ruled that government beliefs — not scientific facts — can justify mandatory medical interventions.