The Denver-based federal appeals court rejected an array of legal theories on Tuesday that challenged employers’ ability to impose COVID-19 vaccination requirements under the U.S. Constitution, laws governing emergency drug authorizations and the rules for human experimentation.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit followed in the footsteps of other courts, finding none of the various grounds cited by two sets of plaintiffs gave them the right to refuse emergency-use vaccines without employment consequences.

In the consolidated cases litigated by the same attorney, the “Timken plaintiffs” challenged their termination from South Denver Cardiology Associates after they declined to receive a COVID-19 vaccination by October 2021. The “Sweeney plaintiffs” worked for UCHealth and likewise faced consequences for declining the vaccine.

At the time, the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment had mandated vaccination for healthcare employees and contractors, although workers were allowed to seek exemptions. The plaintiffs took issue with the requirement to get an “investigational” vaccine, rather than one with full approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

In July 2024, U.S. District Court Judge Nina Y. Wang first addressed the Sweeney plaintiffs’ claims, which relied on the due process and equal protection clauses of the Constitution, multiple laws and even a treaty.

“Plaintiffs fail to show that any of the federal statutes, regulations, reports, or treaties apply in this case and/or that these sources create a private right enforceable” through a lawsuit, she concluded. Moreover, “Courts have routinely found that vaccine mandates do not shock the conscience and do not run afoul of the Constitution.”

Weeks later, U.S. District Court Judge Gordon P. Gallagher similarly dismissed the Timken plaintiffs’ claims, mostly relying on Wang’s analysis. He also called out several largely identical lawsuits filed elsewhere in the country.

“Some of these cases involve the same roughly 100 pages of allegations, most of which are legal authority of limited relevance, brought by the same counsel. These cases have not fared well,” Gallagher wrote.

During oral arguments before the 10th Circuit panel last month, Judge Gregory A. Phillips asked the plaintiffs’ lawyer about his track record.

“There’s been a lot of litigation and you’ve been behind a bunch of it. Have you had any successes? Any cases you can point to where a court has ruled in your favor on these arguments?” Phillips said.

Attorney David Joseph Schexnaydre mentioned a “case in Los Angeles that is going forward.” After Phillips asked whether the judge there had denied a motion to dismiss, Schexnaydre said the defendant had not yet sought to dismiss.

“Plaintiffs here exercised their option to refuse” vaccination, argued Assistant Attorney General Lauren Davison. “Multiple courts have said there can be consequences for that refusal to accept the product when it is an employment condition.”

The 10th Circuit panel agreed that the legal sources cited by the plaintiffs either did not give them the right to sue or did not support their claims. In the Oct. 21 opinion, Judge Timothy M. Tymkovich wrote that the trial judges correctly asked whether the vaccine mandates were rational, and then answered in the affirmative.

“And since Timken and Sweeney cite no authority and make no argument that the vaccination policies are not rationally related to any legitimate government interest, we have no reason to overturn that result,” he wrote.

The cases are Timken et al. v. South Denver Cardiology Associates, P.C. et al. and Sweeney et al. v. University of Colorado Hospital Authority et al.