An appeals court ruled that mRNA COVID-19 shots do not prevent viral transmission and therefore that mandating COVID injections lacks legal basis.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Friday vacated the dismissal of a lawsuit against a California school district for mandating COVID shots, brought forth by the Health Freedom Defense Fund, California Educators for Medical freedom, and other plaintiffs.

The Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) had required that employees get the injections or “lose their jobs,” which the plaintiffs said “interfered with their fundamental right to refuse medical treatment,” the appeals court noted.

The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California had defended LAUSD’s jab mandate on the grounds that the 1905 Supreme Court decision Jacobson v. Massachusetts upheld the right of states to mandate smallpox vaccinations.

READ: CDC discloses 780,000 new reports of serious side effects after COVID-19 vaccination

However, in an opinion penned by Judge R. Nelson, the Ninth Circuit appeals court said that the whole basis of Jacobson was the assumption that vaccines prevented the transmission of smallpox, whereas the plaintiffs in this case “have plausibly alleged that the COVID-19 vaccine does not effectively ‘prevent the spread’ of COVID-19.”

“At this stage, we must accept Plaintiff’s allegations that the vaccine does not prevent the spread of COVID-19 as true. And, because of this, Jacobson does not apply,” wrote Judge Nelson.

The plaintiffs also asserted that the mRNA COVID shots are not “traditional” vaccines, in part because the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) changed its definition of a “vaccine” in September 2021, from a product that “produce[s] immunity” to a “preparation” which “stimulate[s] the body’s immune response.”

“Their complaint’s crux is that the COVID-19 ‘vaccine’ is not a vaccine,” Nelson explained. “’Traditional’ vaccines, Plaintiffs claim, should prevent transmission or provide immunity to those who get them. But the COVID-19 vaccine does neither.”

READ: Japan’s most senior cancer doctor: COVID shots are ‘essentially murder’

As LifeSiteNews has previously reported, Pfizer’s president of international developed markets, Janine Small, affirmed during a European Union (EU) hearing that the pharma giant did not test the ability of its mRNA COVID-19 jabs to stop transmission of the virus, but pushed them through anyway to keep up with “the speed of science.”

This contradicted prior claims by CDC Director Rochelle Walensky and other prominent U.S. “experts” that the vast majority of people who had gotten “fully vaccinated” would not get or transmit COVID-19. U.S. President Joe Biden also falsely asserted that people who had gotten jabbed couldn’t spread COVID to others. Their claims lent credence to efforts in the United States and abroad to require people to get injected with the experimental shots before being allowed to participate in social life.

Dr. Anthony Fauci himself declared numerous times that people who take the injections become “dead ends to the virus,” before later reversing himself, as others supporters of the COVID jabs have done, including Bill Gates.

Small’s admission that Pfizer did not determine whether the COVID shots could stop transmission prompted Member of European Parliament Rob Roos to publicly declare that it was “shocking” and “even criminal” that governments allowed vaccine passports to become a reality when Pfizer had not even tested whether the shots stopped transmission.

READ: ‘So many have died’: Former Japanese minister apologizes for COVID jab-linked deaths

A significant body of evidence links serious risks to the COVID shots. Among it, VAERS reports 37,544 deaths, 216,213 hospitalizations, 21,668 heart attacks, and 28,366 myocarditis and pericarditis cases as of April 26, among other ailments. U.S. Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC) researchers have recognized a “high verification rate of reports of myocarditis to VAERS after mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccination,” leading to the conclusion that “under-reporting is more likely” than over-reporting.