06/19/2026
🚨 SCOTUS UPDATE: The U.S. Supreme Court has called for a response in Boysen v. PeaceHealth.
The petition raises a due process question involving Oregon’s COVID-era healthcare worker mandate and whether individuals could be required to receive an investigational product as a condition of working in a licensed profession.
This does not mean the Court has agreed to hear the case. However, it does mean the petition has advanced beyond the initial review stage and the Court wants a response from the respondents before deciding what comes next.
Some critics have questioned why the petition does not challenge all vaccine mandates. But that was never the point of this case. The petition focuses on a narrower legal question involving mandates tied to EUA/investigational products. In Supreme Court litigation, petitioners often deliberately frame a specific legal issue rather than attempting to challenge every related policy at once.
Whether the Court ultimately grants review remains to be seen, but a call for response is a noteworthy procedural development. Many petitions are denied without ever reaching this stage.
For those following pandemic-related litigation, this is a significant development and one we’ll be tracking closely.