There is no legal Federal Issue here. The states have the authority to act in this case.
I am not sure why the people around here think the Federal Government controls state issues.
I am no lawyer, but I see several issues here.
First, your statement.
Second, a university is like any business or club. You have the right to walk out the door if you are not happy with the way it is operated.
The bottom line is that if she had ruled against the university, she would have been one of those activist judges that conservatives have been condemning. A judge should follow the law and if there is no law, the judge should pass.
The person who should be condemned is the governor. Governors have a lot of influence in the universities.
I would simply remove my kid. Luckily they are all older than the judge and it is no longer an issue in my family.
First thing I would do as a parent is SUE the university for FORCING my kid to take an experimental drug!!
Another issue is this wasn’t a “ruling.” It was a decision not to hear a case.
Second, a university is like any business or club. You have the right to walk out the door if you are not happy with the way it is operated.\
No, it's the General Assembly, which dismisses every year no later than April 30.
GOP Supermajority should have considered a bill to render IU's plans moot, but they did pass HB 1405 and signed by the Goobernor, which prohibits vaccine passports.
IU threaded the needle by not mandating a passport. Their Attorney General Rokita has held IU to Ind. Code ch. 16-39-11, but now it would take a Special Session to pass the specific law to stop IU ... which is the unspoken paradigm to fix the problem behind every federal court stop all the way up to cert ...
The more likely alternative is to fix the problem next January with their statehouse supermajority plenty intact, and there is serious interest in a companion bill to punish IU with a secondary fund-stripping bill.