THE CASE TO EXPOSE COVID TYRANNY. DOES 1-2 V. HORCHUL IS GOING TO SCOTUS?

THE SUPREME COURT CASE THAT COULD OPEN THE FLOODGATES ON STATE REPRESSION.

Revisiting Does 1-2 v. Hochul: Religious Liberty, Public Health, and the Emerging Record of Misrepresentation

I. Introduction

The Does 1-2 v. Hochul litigation represents one of the most consequential collisions between civil liberties and state public-health power in modern U.S. history. Filed by anonymous healthcare workers in New York, the case challenges the legality of firings that occurred when the state eliminated religious exemptions from its COVID-19 vaccine mandate for hospital and nursing-home staff.

Although the Supreme Court has not yet ruled, the factual and evidentiary landscape surrounding COVID-19 policymaking has shifted dramatically since 2021. Through Freedom of Information Act releases, congressional investigations, and manufacturer document disclosures, new information has emerged indicating that both federal regulators and pharmaceutical companies knew — well before the lockdowns and mandates — that the vaccines could not reliably prevent transmission and carried unresolved safety risks.

Those revelations are reshaping the legal analysis of the case itself and opening the door to a wider class of potential civil-rights and fraud actions.

II. Background of the Case

A. The Original Dispute

In August 2021, New York adopted 10 N.Y.C.R.R. § 2.61, requiring vaccination of healthcare personnel who might expose patients or co-workers to COVID-19. The rule allowed medical but not religious exemptions. Employees who refused vaccination on faith-based grounds were suspended or terminated.

The plaintiffs — pseudonymously “Does 1-2” and others — sued both the State and their private employers, asserting:

1. Violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which obligates employers to accommodate sincerely held religious beliefs unless doing so imposes an “undue hardship.”

2. Violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, because the regulation favored secular medical exemptions over religious ones.

They sought reinstatement and damages for lost employment. Lower courts dismissed most claims, deferring to the State’s argument that the mandate served a compelling health interest and that accommodation would endanger patients. The Supreme Court repeatedly “relisted” but did not yet decide whether to hear the case.

III. Core Legal Issues

1. Reasonable Accommodation vs. Undue HardshipEmployers claimed accommodating unvaccinated workers would cause substantial risk in medical settings. The plaintiffs countered that this hardship was speculative and based on incomplete science.

2. State Mandate vs. Federal SupremacyTitle VII is federal law. Plaintiffs argued that a state rule forbidding any religious accommodation directly conflicts with federal accommodation duties.

3. Neutrality and General ApplicabilityBy allowing medical but not religious exemptions, the mandate arguably discriminated against religious belief, triggering strict scrutiny under Fulton v. City of Philadelphia (2021).

4. Mootness and ReliefAlthough § 2.61 has been repealed, the plaintiffs seek monetary damages for the period they were barred from work — keeping the controversy alive.

IV. The New Evidentiary Landscape

Since 2023, a steady flow of internal communications from CDC, FDA, and vaccine manufacturers has come to light through FOIA requests, Senate investigations, and whistleblower actions. These materials alter the factual foundation upon which Does 1-2 v. Hochul was decided.

A. What the Disclosures Show

• Transmission Knowledge: By mid-2021, agency memoranda acknowledged that vaccinated individuals could still transmit SARS-CoV-2 at comparable rates.

• Risk Acknowledgment: Manufacturer safety reports documented myocarditis, menstrual irregularities, and neurological events well before public disclosure.

• Policy Messaging: Despite those findings, CDC talking points continued to claim that vaccination “protects others,” language echoed in state regulatory justifications.

• Data Suppression: Adverse-event signal analyses (VAERS and v-safe) were withheld or delayed, limiting external scientific scrutiny.

Together, these findings undermine the premise that the New York mandate was narrowly tailored to prevent transmission in healthcare settings.

V. Legal Consequences of the New Evidence

A. Undermining the “Compelling Interest” and “Hardship” Rationales

The original judicial deference rested on the belief that vaccination prevented spread. If that factual assumption is false — and officials knew it — the State’s “compelling interest” becomes illusory.For employers, the “undue hardship” defense evaporates; one cannot claim a hardship from allowing unvaccinated employees when vaccination offered no superior protection to others.

B. Fraud and Misrepresentation Exposure

Evidence that agencies or manufacturers knowingly propagated false claims may justify new suits under:

• Fraudulent Inducement (employers and states relied on misleading data in enforcing mandates);

• Civil Conspiracy (coordination between public and private actors to suppress religious or scientific dissent);

• Willful Misconduct Exception to PREP Act immunity for vaccine producers.

C. Rule 60(b) Re-Opening of Prior Judgments

Under Federal Rule 60(b)(2), judgments may be reopened for “newly discovered evidence.”These FOIA releases — unattainable in 2021-22 — meet that criterion. Plaintiffs could move to vacate dismissals or seek limited discovery on agency communications.

D. Section 1983 and Broader Civil-Rights Liability

State and local officials who continued to enforce mandates after learning of their factual deficiencies risk liability for depriving citizens of constitutional rights “under color of law.”Related theories extend to wrongful imprisonment of those detained for quarantine violations and denial of assembly or worship during lockdowns.

VI. Prospective Litigation and Next Steps

1. Reassessment Complaints

Plaintiffs’ counsel may file Rule 60(b) motions or new Title VII complaints alleging:

• Reliance on fraudulent government representations;

• Constructive discharge based on religious discrimination;

• Damages for reputational harm and lost income.

2. Civil-Rights Expansion

Coalitions could pursue § 1983 actions targeting:

• State health officials who ordered or prolonged unlawful restrictions;

• Municipalities that arrested or fined individuals for non-compliance with unconstitutional executive orders.

3. Manufacturer Accountability

Although the PREP Act grants immunity, its willful-misconduct clause allows civil action if claimants show deliberate concealment of safety or efficacy data. Discovery from ongoing FOIA suits provides a factual foundation.

4. Congressional and State Oversight

Parallel legislative investigations may strengthen plaintiffs’ evidentiary posture and support findings of bad-faith governance, enabling class claims for compensation.

VII. Implications for Constitutional Governance

The emerging record transforms Does 1-2 v. Hochul from a narrow employment dispute into a test of how the judiciary corrects policy built on false premises.If courts continue to defer blindly to agency expertise despite documented misconduct, they risk institutionalizing misinformation as precedent.Conversely, if the courts acknowledge that the foundational facts were wrong — and perhaps knowingly misrepresented — they can reaffirm that civil rights remain intact even in emergencies.

This recalibration would have ripple effects:

• Future public-health mandates would face heightened scrutiny requiring transparent, verifiable evidence.

• Federal-state coordination would need explicit religious-accommodation provisions in emergency rules.

• Agencies would be deterred from over-classifying safety data or manipulating scientific consensus.

VIII. Conclusion

Does 1-2 v. Hochul began as a simple question: must employers accommodate religious objections to COVID-19 vaccination?Today it stands at the intersection of civil rights, scientific integrity, and administrative accountability.The FOIA disclosures now suggest that government and corporate actors enforced mandates under knowledge of limited efficacy and suppressed risks, resulting in firings, loss of livelihood, and suppression of faith-based conscience.

The next stage — whether through reopened suits, new class actions, or congressional referral — will determine whether the United States reaffirms its constitutional limits in times of crisis or allows expediency and misinformation to redefine them.The outcome will not only decide restitution for the workers in Does 1-2 v. Hochul but will also shape how America governs truth, science, and liberty in every future emergency.