As students throughout the nation begin to head back to college, the U.S. Supreme Court added another critical item to their “to-do” lists. In its first test of mandatory vaccination policies, Justice Amy Coney Barrett placed the health of students at Indiana University (IU) over eight students’ contention that the risk of vaccines outweighs the potential benefits for their age group.

Barrett, who is the justice assigned to IU’s district, denied the students’ emergency application for a writ of injunction on August 13. The students began their quest to strike the university’s policy earlier this summer but lost before both the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana and the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Seventh Circuit. On July 21, they asked Barrett to void the school’s mandatory vaccination requirement.

Justice Barrett denied their request without seeking any response from the university or the state of Indiana and without referring it to her colleagues on the court for a full vote. Her ruling had no dissents, setting a high bar for future lawsuits from students who oppose mandatory vaccinations.

The SCOTUS blog reports that the court “did not issue a separate order or provide any explanation.” Instead, the docket for the case merely indicates that Barrett denied the students’ application for an injunction. The Jurist wrote that the “lack of referral to the full court and not seeking a response from the university on the emergency injunction application is a sign that the court does not consider this a particularly close case.”

The students’ appellate brief focused on two primary questions. First, their attorneys addressed the proper degree of scrutiny that must be applied to the students’ argument that IU’s policy violated their “constitutional rights to bodily integrity and autonomy and medical treatment rights,” which they claim “the courts below erroneously failed to do.” Second, they said the high court needed to decide whether IU failed to prove that its “mandate is justified under heightened scrutiny.”

The students’ appeal provides their version of the relevant facts and law. They report that IU’s mandate was announced on May 21, 2021, and included the penalties for noncompliance. These were “canceled class registration, terminated IU identification cards, and restrictions from participation in any on-campus activity.” The students did point out that exemptions were allowed for what they termed “extremely limited criteria,” such as religion, allergies, and medical deferrals. Even though those who received exemptions were required to wear masks and get tested twice a week, the availability of exemptions or attendance at other universities were key reasons for their loss in the lower courts.

Appellant’s brief contains additional arguments for the requested injunction. They point out that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has given the vaccines only Emergency Use Authorization, not complete approval, and claim that the risk of death from COVID-19 for individuals under 30 is “virtually zero.” They also contend that IU’s mandate violates medical ethics that require “voluntary and informed consent” and that it exceeds guidelines set by both the Centers for Disease Controls (CDC) and the state of Indiana. Their brief, which was written before the latest COVID outbreak due to the Delta variant, also alleges that the pandemic is in the “final stages of recovery.” Finally, they write that there are “emerging trends” that show vaccines are “especially risky for those 18-29.”

The students next cited the legal arguments for granting an injunction: there must be “a significant possibility that the court would grant certiorari and reverse and there is a likelihood that irreparable injury will result if relief is not granted.” The students say that “heightened scrutiny is required,” and claim that they would have been likely to succeed if heightened scrutiny, rather than rational basis, had been used by the lower courts. They strongly contend that public health during a pandemic was not a “compelling interest that justified draconian government restrictions,” especially since the pandemic is “on a downswing.”

They argued that IU’s mandate was not narrowly tailored and did not even address the elderly, a demographic that is much more likely to be in danger than young students. They continue to call the mandate a “constitutional injury” and say that the “balance of harm and public interest” both favor the students.

Although Barrett did not provide her analysis or reasoning, she obviously did not find the students’ arguments persuasive enough to allow them to proceed with oral argument. Indiana University’s website now tells students: “Given our desire to return to a more typical fall, a COVID-19 vaccine or approved exemption is required beginning with the fall 2021 semester. This requirement applies to all students, faculty and staff at all IU campuses.”