The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Tuesday delivered a definitive blow to a group of municipal employees in Bellingham, Washington, who sought to overturn the city’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate. In a published opinion issued on May 26, 2026, a three-judge panel affirmed a lower court’s decision to dismiss the lawsuit, concluding that the city acted within its legal authority to protect public health during a global pandemic. Furthermore, the appellate court upheld the district court’s refusal to allow the plaintiffs to amend their complaint, effectively ending a multi-year legal battle that has served as a local focal point for broader national debates over executive overreach and individual liberties.
The ruling marks a significant victory for the City of Bellingham and its administration, which implemented the mandate in late 2021 as part of a comprehensive strategy to maintain essential services while mitigating the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. The plaintiffs, a coalition of city workers including firefighters, police officers, and public works staff, had argued that the mandate violated their constitutional rights, specifically citing substantive due process and the right to bodily integrity. However, the Ninth Circuit panel found these arguments insufficient to overcome the established legal precedent that grants local governments broad "police powers" to regulate public health.
The Genesis of the Bellingham Mandate
To understand the weight of the Ninth Circuit’s decision, it is necessary to revisit the conditions under which the mandate was originally conceived. In August 2021, as the Delta variant of COVID-19 surged across the United States, Washington Governor Jay Inslee issued a series of proclamations requiring healthcare workers and state employees to be fully vaccinated. Shortly thereafter, the City of Bellingham followed suit, with Mayor Seth Fleetwood issuing an executive order requiring all city employees to be vaccinated against COVID-19 as a condition of continued employment.
At the time, Bellingham officials argued that the mandate was essential for several reasons:
- Workforce Stability: High rates of infection among city staff were leading to staffing shortages in critical departments, such as the Bellingham Fire Department and the Bellingham Police Department.
- Public Safety: City employees frequently interact with vulnerable populations, including the elderly and those with underlying health conditions.
- Economic Continuity: By reducing the likelihood of workplace outbreaks, the city aimed to avoid the costly shutdowns of public facilities and services.
The mandate allowed for medical and religious exemptions, but those who did not qualify or refused to comply faced administrative leave or termination. By the time the policy was fully implemented in late 2021, over 95% of the city’s workforce had complied. However, a group of approximately 40 employees remained steadfast in their opposition, eventually filing the lawsuit that led to Tuesday’s appellate ruling.
Chronology of the Litigation
The legal journey began in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. The plaintiffs filed their initial complaint in early 2022, seeking an injunction to halt the mandate and damages for what they characterized as "unconstitutional coercion."
In the district court, the plaintiffs centered their arguments on the Fourteenth Amendment, asserting that the right to refuse medical treatment is a fundamental liberty. They also alleged that the city’s exemption process was "arbitrary and capricious," claiming that religious accommodations were being denied without proper individual assessment.
The City of Bellingham moved to dismiss the case, arguing that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The city relied heavily on the landmark 1905 Supreme Court case Jacobson v. Massachusetts, which established that a community has the right to protect itself against an epidemic of disease which threatens the safety of its members.
In late 2023, the district court granted the city’s motion to dismiss. The judge ruled that the vaccine mandate was a rational exercise of the city’s authority and that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated a violation of a "fundamental right" that would trigger strict scrutiny. Crucially, the district court dismissed the case "with prejudice," meaning the plaintiffs were barred from filing an amended complaint to address the legal deficiencies in their initial filing. The plaintiffs promptly appealed to the Ninth Circuit.
The Ninth Circuit’s Legal Analysis
The Ninth Circuit panel, in its May 2026 decision, focused on two primary legal standards: the "rational basis" review and the standard for granting leave to amend a complaint under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Rational Basis vs. Strict Scrutiny
The court first addressed the level of judicial scrutiny applicable to vaccine mandates. The plaintiffs argued that because the mandate involved "forced medical intervention," the court should apply "strict scrutiny"—the highest level of judicial review, which requires the government to prove that a policy is narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling state interest.
The Ninth Circuit rejected this, affirming that vaccine mandates are generally subject to "rational basis review." Under this more lenient standard, a policy is constitutional if it is "rationally related to a legitimate government interest." The panel noted that the city’s interest in preventing the spread of a communicable disease among its staff and the public is undeniably legitimate.
"The City of Bellingham’s decision to require vaccination was not an arbitrary exercise of power," the panel wrote. "Rather, it was a data-driven response to an unprecedented public health crisis. Whether or not the plaintiffs agree with the efficacy of the vaccines, the city had a rational basis to believe that the mandate would protect the health of its workforce and the community at large."
The Right to Bodily Integrity
The plaintiffs’ appeal also leaned heavily on the concept of bodily integrity. They argued that the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause protects an individual’s right to choose what is injected into their body. While the Ninth Circuit acknowledged that individuals have a general liberty interest in their medical care, it clarified that this interest is not absolute when it conflicts with the safety of others.
The court pointed out that the city did not physically force anyone to be vaccinated. Instead, it made vaccination a condition of employment. The panel noted that while the choice between a job and a vaccine may be difficult, it does not constitute a "forced" medical procedure in the constitutional sense.
Denial of Leave to Amend
One of the most significant aspects of the ruling was the court’s decision to uphold the denial of "leave to amend." Typically, courts are encouraged to allow plaintiffs to fix errors in their lawsuits. However, the Ninth Circuit agreed with the district court that any amendment would be "futile."
The panel concluded that no amount of additional fact-finding or legal re-phrasing could change the fundamental legal reality: that Bellingham’s mandate was a lawful exercise of municipal power. By barring the amendment, the court effectively shut the door on any further attempts by these specific plaintiffs to challenge the 2021 mandate in federal court.
Supporting Data and Context
The Ninth Circuit’s decision arrives at a time when the legal landscape regarding COVID-19 mandates has largely stabilized. Across the United States, federal courts of appeal have consistently upheld similar mandates for public employees, healthcare workers, and military personnel.
According to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and various legal tracking databases:
- Success Rate of Mandate Challenges: Since 2021, over 85% of federal lawsuits challenging COVID-19 vaccine mandates for public employees have been dismissed at the district court level or affirmed on appeal.
- Public Health Impact: In Washington State, the Department of Health reported that by mid-2022, hospitalizations among vaccinated individuals were significantly lower than among the unvaccinated, providing the "rational basis" often cited by courts in these rulings.
- Bellingham’s Specific Data: At the height of the litigation, Bellingham reported that its employee vaccination rate had reached nearly 98%, one of the highest for a municipality of its size in the Pacific Northwest.
Official Responses and Reactions
Following the ruling, the City of Bellingham’s legal department issued a brief statement expressing satisfaction with the court’s clarity.
"We are pleased that the Ninth Circuit has affirmed what we have maintained since the beginning of this process," the statement read. "The city’s actions were taken in good faith to protect our employees and the residents we serve during a period of immense uncertainty. This ruling allows the city to move forward and continue our focus on providing essential public services."
Counsel for the plaintiffs, however, expressed disappointment, suggesting that the ruling prioritizes government efficiency over individual rights.
"We believe the court missed an opportunity to reinforce the importance of bodily autonomy," a representative for the workers stated. "Our clients are dedicated public servants who served on the front lines during the pandemic. To have their careers jeopardized over a personal medical decision is a precedent we find deeply troubling. We are currently evaluating all remaining legal options, including a potential petition for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court."
Broader Implications and Analysis
The Ninth Circuit’s decision in the Bellingham case carries several implications for the future of administrative law and public health policy:
1. Affirmation of Municipal Power
The ruling reinforces the principle that local governments possess the necessary "police power" to respond to emergencies. It clarifies that during a public health crisis, courts will generally defer to the expertise of health officials and elected leaders, provided their actions meet the "rational basis" threshold.
2. The Limits of Substantive Due Process
The case highlights the narrow window for substantive due process claims in the context of employment. By distinguishing between "compulsory vaccination" (which is rare) and "vaccination as a condition of employment," the court has provided a roadmap for how future mandates—whether for vaccines, safety gear, or other health measures—can be structured to survive legal scrutiny.
3. Finality in Pandemic-Era Litigation
As we move further away from the acute phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, this ruling signals a closing of the chapter on pandemic-related litigation. Many similar cases are being resolved through dismissals or settlements, as the legal "emergency" status of the pandemic has expired in most jurisdictions. The Bellingham case serves as a final word for the Ninth Circuit on the validity of these early-2020s policies.
4. Impact on Future Health Crises
Legal experts suggest that this ruling will be cited in future instances of public health emergencies. Whether it involves a future pandemic, an outbreak of a known disease like measles, or other environmental health threats, the Bellingham precedent provides a clear legal framework for municipalities to mandate protective measures for their workforces.
Conclusion
The Ninth Circuit’s refusal to revive the lawsuit against Bellingham’s vaccine mandate underscores the enduring strength of public health precedents in American law. While the debate over individual liberty versus collective safety continues to simmer in the political arena, the judicial consensus remains firm: in the face of a significant threat to public health, the government’s mandate to protect the population is legally paramount. For the city workers of Bellingham, the ruling marks the end of a long and contentious legal journey, affirming that the policies enacted during the height of the pandemic were not only necessary in the eyes of the city but also lawful in the eyes of the court.
