Seeking Restorative Justice for Americans Victimized by COVID Mandates

Washington, DC – September 21, 2026

On September 18, 2026, Dr. Simone Gold and the AFLDS legal team filed an amici curiae brief with the Supreme Court of the United States in support of the Petitioners in Boyd v. Shriners Hospitals for Children (26-220). Our brief urges the Court to grant certiorari and reverse the Third Circuit’s decision affirming the District Court’s dismissal of the Petitioners’ claims.

The Petitioners—Beth Boyd, Janet Noland, Michelle Peck, and Carly Robson—were terminated by Shriners Hospitals for Children in Pennsylvania, after refusing to comply with a September 2021 COVID-19 “vaccine” mandate. They sued, alleging the mandate deprived them of their right to refuse Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) drugs, their right to be treated equally before the law, and the right to privacy. The Western District of Pennsylvania dismissed the case. The Third Circuit later affirmed, treating Shriners’ employment mandate as separate from its role in the federal COVID-19 Vaccination Program and treating the mandated product as the “functional equivalent” of the fully approved Comirnaty.

AFLDS first stood with the Petitioners at the Third Circuit in April 2025. The issues now before the Supreme Court include whether hospitals that enrolled in the CDC distribution program may coerce employees into taking dangerous investigational mRNA injections under threat of job loss, and whether those claims may be thrown out before discovery begins.

AFLDS and Dr. Gold present a medical and legal record the lower courts refused to confront:

• The CDC’s COVID-19 Vaccination Program contractually and legally bound participating providers—including Shriners—to comply with federal constitutional and statutory rights, obligations, and rules concerning  experimental, investigational drugs. Shriners violated binding informed consent and experimental drug regulations.
• At the time of the mandate, the injections Shriners required were EUA investigational products, not the licensed Comirnaty. Federal law required that participation be voluntary and free from coercion.
• Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health holds that personal medical treatment decisions must be strictly voluntary and free from coercion. Conditioning employment on an experimental injection is coercion.
• Jacobson v. Massachusetts does not authorize forced personal medical treatments that do not prevent infection or transmission. These shots are personal medical treatments only.
• The CDC’s own VAERS system has documented millions of adverse reactions and hospitalizations, and 39,205 fatalities attributable to these mRNA injections through July 31, 2026. Historically, a vaccine would be pulled from the market after only a few deaths.
• Federal and state policy has already shifted. HHS has removed the shot from the CDC schedule for healthy children and healthy pregnant women, Florida has called for a halt to mRNA COVID shots, and multiple states are moving to limit or ban them.

AFLDS attorney David Dalia stated, “It should be obvious that you cannot sign up to distribute an experimental drug with a terrible safety profile, including numerous fatalities, permanent disabilities, and miscarriages, and then fire people for refusing to take it. Informed consent must be voluntary and free of coercion. Absolutely no one should have to choose between their job and an injection they do not want. The right of personal bodily integrity and the right to refuse unwanted medical treatments are fundamental rights. Yet, these claims were thrown out before discovery even began. That is not how fundamental rights are supposed to work. We are hopeful the Supreme Court will take this case and correct the deeply flawed decisions of the lower courts.”

AFLDS Founder and President Dr. Simone Gold added, “Last year, we told the Third Circuit that this case could break the dam of COVID tyranny. The dam is cracking. What remains is for the Supreme Court to say what should have been obvious from the first day: no hospital, no employer, and no government may force an experimental injection into a free citizen’s body as the price of earning a living. We stand with the Petitioners in Boyd. Justice is not optional.”

AFLDS maintains that these coercive mandates violate the right to refuse medical treatment, bodily integrity, prohibitions on medical battery, and the Nuremberg principle that human experimentation must be voluntary. If the dismissals stand, the violations are likely to recur the next time officials declare an emergency.

Stay tuned. AFLDS will continue to update supporters on Boyd and on our mission to deliver restorative justice for Americans victimized by COVID mandates.
 

###

About AFLDS

We are the Nation's independent authority on ethical and transparent standards in science, health, and human rights. We provide individuals with unbiased and accurate information from the world's top experts in medicine and law so you can be empowered with facts to protect your rights, take care of your health, and safeguard your future. Visit AFLDS.org
 

Media Contact Lisa Alexander, Executive Director | [email protected]