Order Denying Injunction Pending Appeal — Klaassen v. Indiana University (N.D. Ind.)

Record facts

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT · No. 1:21-cv-00238-DRL-SLC · Doc. 40 · 2021-07-21 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 
FORT WAYNE DIVISION 
 
RYAN KLAASSEN et al., 
 
                                  Plaintiffs, 
 
 
v. 
 
CAUSE NO. 1:21-CV-238 DRL-SLC 
THE TRUSTEES OF INDIANA 
UNIVERSITY, 
 
                                 Defendant. 
 
ORDER 
 
The students move to enjoin Indiana University from enforcing its vaccination 
policy pending their appeal. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(d). The court reviews this motion under 
generally the same analysis governing the preliminary injunction motion. Hilton v. 
Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987); Cavel Int’l, Inc. v. Madigan, 500 F.3d 544, 547-48 (7th 
Cir. 2007); see, e.g., Korte v. Sebelius, 528 F. Appx. 583, 585-86 (7th Cir. 2012).  
 
If the court only had another five days for its preliminary injunction ruling, it 
would have been shorter. Fair to say the court needn’t elaborate on a 101-page opinion. 
The students never made a strong showing that they were likely to succeed on their 
constitutional claim’s merits. As it turns out, they only made a soft showing.  
In this motion, the students posit strict scrutiny by theorizing an expansion of Roe 
v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973). The court declines to view that theory of error as strong. It 
stands in contrast to the Constitution, and longstanding precedent from the United States 
Supreme Court. See Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 720-21 (1997); Zucht v. King, 
260 U.S. 174, 176-77 (1922); Jacobson v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 24-25 
USDC IN/ND case 1:21-cv-00238-DRL-SLC   document 40   filed 07/21/21   page 1 of 3

2 
(1905); see also Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124, 163 (2007); Cruzan v. Director, Missouri 
Dept. of Health 497 U.S. 261, 279 (1990); Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210, 221-22 (1990). 
For any number of reasons articulated in the court’s prior opinion, the students 
lack irreparable harm or an inadequate remedy at law. Indeed, they have many choices 
available to them that avoid any irreparable harm they perceive in the vaccine policy. 
Only in the sense of a constitutional violation have they advanced these requirements, 
albeit again dimly on this record. 
The balance of harms and public interest remain undisturbed and now likewise 
oppose any stay pending appeal. The court addressed these issues in full in its prior 
opinion. In this motion, the students say their constitutional claim is strong, but it isn’t. 
That low likelihood of success requires from the students a greater showing of the balance 
of harms. See Turnell v. CentiMark Corp., 796 F.3d 656, 662 (7th Cir. 2015). 
For that, the students say the COVID-19 risks have significantly declined, a large 
measure of the university’s population has been vaccinated, and their decision won’t 
harm the university or others. COVID-19 risks are lower than at the pandemic’s height 
because of vaccinations; but viral risks prove ever potent, particularly to those who have 
awaited or foregone vaccination as variants circle and the pandemic persists. In actuality, 
at least at last count, many thousands of students remained to be vaccinated at the 
university. And staying the policy pending appeal risks more harm than not.  
Add to what the court said Sunday the additional concern today that a stay 
introduces greater confusion, not less, as to a student’s obligation mere weeks before the 
fall semester begins in August 2021, particularly given the need to receive the vaccine (if 
USDC IN/ND case 1:21-cv-00238-DRL-SLC   document 40   filed 07/21/21   page 2 of 3

3 
not exempted) and then to wait two weeks after the last dose for it to take hold. And it 
risks, on this record, the public’s and university’s greater interest in health and safety.  
Six of eight students have exemptions already. A seventh student qualifies if she 
would just ask. Almost to a one then, the students need only worry about masking, social 
distancing, and surveillance testing from here. Any real harm to them is thus quite slight 
while this case proceeds on appeal. 
Only one student has an unexemptible choice; and, given the low likelihood of 
success, she hasn’t shown her interest to outweigh the safety of some 90,000 students, 
40,000 faculty and staff, or multiple campus communities. For these reasons, and those 
given by the court before, the interests align firmly against a stay of this policy pending 
appeal. The circumstances since Sunday haven’t turned materially to the better.  
 
The court DENIES the motion for an injunction pending appeal (ECF 37). 
 
SO ORDERED. 
July 21, 2021  
 
 
 
s/ Damon R. Leichty  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judge, United States District Court 
 
USDC IN/ND case 1:21-cv-00238-DRL-SLC   document 40   filed 07/21/21   page 3 of 3

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.innd.107499.40.0.pdf

Size

66,867 bytes

SHA-256

42eabc8a24a50244c4308217cec1aeb4c583bac60cd5bc6e13a9bb0513194cdb

Our copy

gov.uscourts.innd.107499.40.0.pdf

Original

archive.org