Pandemic Darlings The pandemic economy, in original documents
Home Court filings Children's Health Defense, Inc. v. Rutgers

Case docket

Children's Health Defense, Inc. v. Rutgers — U.S. District Court, D.N.J.

Children's Health Defense, Inc. v. Rutgers — U.S. District Court, D.N.J. — 35 documents in the archive, dated August 25, 2021 to October 19, 2022.

Case facts

CourtU.S. District Court, District of New Jersey
Docket numberNo. 3:21-cv-15333 — main docket · CourtListener docket 480171
Filings35 public filings
Filed2021-08-25 – 2022-10-19
Original PDFs35 of 35

Case summary

Children's Health Defense, Inc., with a group of Rutgers students, filed a complaint on August 16, 2021 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, No. 3:21-cv-15333-ZNQ-TJB, seeking a declaration that the part of Rutgers' COVID-19 policy requiring students to be vaccinated before returning to campus is unlawful. The plaintiffs asserted that the requirement that all students either receive a COVID-19 vaccination or obtain a lawful exemption violates the Constitution and state and federal laws. The court denied a motion for recusal on September 14, 2021 and denied the plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order on September 27, 2021. On September 22, 2022 it granted the defendants' motion to dismiss and entered final judgment dismissing the First Amended Complaint. The plaintiffs appealed to the Third Circuit on October 19, 2022.

Case at a glance

PartiesPlaintiffs: Children's Health Defense, Inc., Peter Cordi, Raelynne Miller, Kayla Mateo, Adriana Pinto, Jake Bothe, Anthony Lamancusa, Jessica Moore, Ryan Sandor, Gianna Corallo, Ryan Farrell, Sebastian Blasi, Maggie Horn and Lindsay Mancini, three of them formerly pleaded as Doe plaintiffs. Defendants: Rutgers and named university defendants
Court and docketU.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, No. 3:21-cv-15333-ZNQ-TJB
ProgramNot named in the filings on this page
ClaimsDeclaratory and injunctive relief against Rutgers University Policy Section 10.3.14, which mandates COVID-19 vaccination; the plaintiffs pleaded that the requirement that all students be vaccinated or obtain a lawful exemption violates the Constitution and state and federal laws, and that applying it to a fully remote student is arbitrary and capricious and contrary to the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
Disposition or statusRecusal denied September 14, 2021; temporary restraining order denied September 27, 2021; motion to dismiss granted and final judgment entered September 22, 2022 dismissing the First Amended Complaint; notice of appeal to the Third Circuit filed October 19, 2022
Status checked2026-09-23 · against DOJ press releases through 2026-09-22; court docket not yet read

What did the plaintiffs ask for?

A declaration that the portion of Rutgers' COVID-19 policy requiring students to be vaccinated prior to returning to campus is unlawful, and a temporary restraining order enjoining enforcement of Policy Section 10.3.14 against a student enrolled in a fully remote class schedule who would not set foot on campus.

How did the district court rule?

It denied the temporary restraining order on September 27, 2021, stating that for the reasons given the motion would be denied. On September 22, 2022 it granted the motion to dismiss and entered final judgment dismissing the First Amended Complaint; the opinion and the dismissal order on this page are scans whose text does not extract, and the ruling is recorded in the notice of appeal.

What did Rutgers argue?

That the facial challenge to the policy is precluded by Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905), whose principle of deference to vaccine mandates it said had remained undisturbed; that New Jersey law authorizes Rutgers to mandate any vaccine recommended by the federal Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices; and that a student taking only remote classes has no legal right to an exemption.

Docket

35 documents in docket-entry order; attachments follow their entry. Gaps name the entries we do not have.

No. 3:21-cv-15333

  1. Counsel Letter Requesting Recusal — Children's Health Defense v. Rutgers (D.N.J.)Entry 8
  2. —Entry 9 is not in the archive
  3. Notice of Motion for TRO — Children's Health Defense v. RutgersEntry 10
  4. Memorandum of Law in Support of TRO — Children's Health Defense v. Rutgers (D.N.J.)Entry 10, attachment 1
  5. Declaration of Adriana Pinto — Children's Health Defense v. Rutgers (D.N.J., 2021-08-30)Entry 10, attachment 4
  6. —Entries 11–16 are not in the archive
  7. Notice of Motion for Recusal — Children's Health Defense v. Rutgers (D.N.J., 2021-09-03)Entry 17
  8. undatedMemorandum of Law in Support of Recusal — Children's Health Defense v. RutgersEntry 17, attachment 1
  9. Rutgers Opposition to Recusal Motion — Children's Health Defense v. RutgersEntry 18
  10. Opinion Denying Motion for Recusal — Children's Health Defense v. Rutgers (D.N.J.)Entry 19
  11. Rutgers Opposition to TRO Motion — Children's Health Defense v. RutgersEntry 20
  12. Order Denying Recusal — Children's Health Defense v. RutgersEntry 21
  13. —Entries 22–23 are not in the archive
  14. Plaintiffs' Reply Brief on TRO — Children's Health Defense v. Rutgers (D.N.J.)Entry 24
  15. Notice of Motion to File Sur-Reply — Children's Health Defense v. Rutgers (D.N.J., 2021-09-22)Entry 25
  16. Rutgers Sur-Reply on TRO Motion — Children's Health Defense v. RutgersEntry 25, attachment 1
  17. —Entry 26 is not in the archive
  18. Opinion Denying TRO — Children's Health Defense v. RutgersEntry 27
  19. Order Denying TRO — Children's Health Defense v. RutgersEntry 28
  20. —Entry 29 is not in the archive
  21. Motion to Compel Doe Plaintiffs to Identify Themselves — Children's Health Defense v. Rutgers (D.N.J.)Entry 30
  22. Memorandum in Support of Motion to Compel Doe Disclosure — Children's Health Defense v. Rutgers (D.N.J.)Entry 30, attachment 1
  23. Stipulation and Order — Children's Health Defense v. RutgersEntry 31
  24. —Entry 32 is not in the archive
  25. Plaintiffs' Opposition to Compel Doe Disclosure — Children's Health Defense v. RutgersEntry 33
  26. —Entries 34–38 are not in the archive
  27. —Entry 39: main document not in the archive
  28. Rutgers Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss — Children's Health Defense v. Rutgers (D.N.J.)Entry 39, attachment 1
  29. —Entries 40–41 are not in the archive
  30. Plaintiffs' Opposition to Motion to Dismiss — Children's Health Defense v. RutgersEntry 42
  31. Declaration of Counsel Julio C. Gomez — Children's Health Defense v. Rutgers (D.N.J., 2022-01-11)Entry 42, attachment 1
  32. New Jersey Register Exhibit (Dkt. 42-4) — Children's Health Defense v. Rutgers (D.N.J.)Entry 42, attachment 4
  33. Rutgers Reply Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss — Children's Health Defense v. Rutgers (D.N.J.)Entry 43
  34. —Entry 44 is not in the archive
  35. Supplemental Authority Letter — NJ PBA v. Murphy — Children's Health Defense v. RutgersEntry 45
  36. NJ PBA v. Murphy — Slip Opinion (Exhibit to Supplemental Authority)Entry 45, attachment 1
  37. —Entries 46–47 are not in the archive
  38. Letter Order — Doe Plaintiffs Must Disclose Identities — Children's Health Defense v. Rutgers (D.N.J.)Entry 48
  39. Supplemental Authority Letter — Goe v. Children's Health Defense — CHD v. Rutgers (D.N.J.)Entry 49
  40. Plaintiffs' Response to Goe Supplemental Authority — Children's Health Defense v. Rutgers (D.N.J.)Entry 50
  41. Plaintiffs' Supplemental Authority — CDC Guidance and EO 302 — Children's Health Defense v. RutgersEntry 51
  42. Rutgers' Letter Opposing Supplemental Briefing — Children's Health Defense v. Rutgers (D.N.J.)Entry 52
  43. Opinion Granting Motion to Dismiss — Children's Health Defense v. Rutgers (D.N.J.)Entry 53
  44. Order of Dismissal With Prejudice — Children's Health Defense v. Rutgers (D.N.J.)Entry 54
  45. Notice of Appeal to Third Circuit — Children's Health Defense v. Rutgers (D.N.J.)Entry 55

Documents without an entry number

  1. undatedVerified Complaint — Children's Health Defense v. Rutgers

More documents from this case’s dockets

2 more documents linked to this case’s dockets are in the archive and not in the docket above.

  1. Plaintiffs, VERIFIED COMPLAINTComplaintVerified complaint, Children's Health Defense v. Rutgers, No. 3:21-cv-15333 (D.N.J., August 16, 2021), challenging Rutgers' COVID-19 vaccine mandate.
  2. Proposed Order — Children's Health Defense v. Rutgers (Dkt. 10-7, D.N.J.)OrderProposed order, Children's Health Defense v. Rutgers, No. 3:21-cv-15333 (ZNQ-TJB) (D.N.J.), Doc. 10-7, filed August 30, 2021.

Other cases in the archive from U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey.

Court, dates and docket numbers are as recorded on the filings.

Back to top