Streight v. Pritzker
| Decision Date | 22 September 2021 |
| Docket Number | 3:21-cv-50339 |
| Parties | Caleb James Quincy Streight, Plaintiff, v. Jay Robert Pritzker, Rock Valley College, Howard J. Spearman, and Illinois Board of Higher Education, [1] Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pro se plaintiff Caleb Streight, a full-time student at Rock Valley College (RVC) in Rockford, Illinois, seeks a preliminary injunction against the COVID-19 testing requirement at RVC for unvaccinated students. Dkt. 12. For the reasons herein Streight's motion for a preliminary injunction is denied because he has failed to show the likelihood of success on the merits of his claim.
On August 23, 2021, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted full approval to the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine. FDA News Release, “FDA Approves First COVID-19 Vaccine, ” https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-approves-first-covid-19-vaccine (Aug. 23, 2021) (last visited Sept. 22, 2021). On August 26 2021, Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker signed Executive Order 2021-20, which imposed minimum vaccination requirements for higher education. Exec. Order No. 2021-20, 45 Ill. Reg. 11429 (Sep. 10, 2021) (hereinafter as “EO20”). Specifically, the order requires that faculty, staff, and students at institutions of higher education (IHEs) including community colleges, receive at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine by September 5, 2021 and provide proof of full vaccination within 30 days.[2] The order established a minimum weekly testing protocol for anyone who is not vaccinated, and states that each IHE “shall exclude . students . . . unless they comply with the testing requirements.” Id. The order allows for two narrow exceptions: 1) when the vaccine is medically contraindicated, and 2) when vaccination would violate an individual's religion. Id. Streight does not allege that either exception applies to him.
On August 26, RV C President Spearman sent an email to RV C students explaining that it planned to comply with the Governor's order EO22. Dkt. 36, at 4. Spearman stated that RV C 's “main goal is to prevent the spread of COVID-19 and to maintain safe, in-person operations.” Id. His email also indicated that specific details about how RV C would implement the testing and self-reporting program would be updated on the school's website at www.rockvalleycollege.edu/COVID. Id.
On August 27, 2021, RV C President Spearman sent another email to RV C students, reiterating that the school would require vaccines for individuals enrolled in on-campus courses and require masks and weekly testing for anyone who was exempt or refused the vaccine. Dkt. 12, at 7-8. As a result, COVID testing of students is only required when a student is not only unvaccinated but also attends classes in-person. This email also encouraged students and employees to get vaccinated and to make use of the free SHIELD COVID-19 Testing Site on campus at the Educational Resource Center building.
SHIELD Illinois COVID-19 Testing is “surveillance testing” that “can be useful in finding asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic cases” of COVID-19. RVC, “SHIELD Testing, ” www.rockvalleycollege.edu/COVID/SHIELD-Testing.cfm (last visited Sept. 21, 2021). SHIELD Tests are PCR-based tests requiring only a small test tube of saliva. Id. RV C explains that “life continues as usual while waiting for the [test] results” and that students need not wait for a negative test to be on campus. Id. Further, testing is available at RV C 's main campus four days a week: from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Mondays and Wednesdays, and 12 p.m. to 5 p.m. on Tuesdays and Thursdays. Id. RV C also states, Id.
On September 1, 2021, Plaintiff Caleb Streight filed a pro se motion for an emergency injunction seeking to bar RV C from requiring him to submit to weekly COVID testing. Streight alleges that the mandatory COVID testing regimen at RV C is an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment.[3]
This Court held an evidentiary hearing on September 21, 2021 on Streight's motion for a preliminary injunction and permitted each side to call witnesses and submit affidavits. Only a limited record was presented to the Court. At the hearing, Streight presented twelve exhibits including documents from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) about COVID-19 mortality, from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VA E R S) about the COVID vaccines, and several cases. He testified that he was in “imminent danger of being harmed by the government” because the testing requirement violates his “Fourth Amendment right to be secure in [his] person and the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.” Prelim. Inj. Hr'g Tr. 12:16 - 20:13. Streight also testified that he was “in peril of being removed from public education system for standing on [his] Fourth Amendment right.”[4] Id. The Court confirmed with Streight that his claim was based on the Fourth Amendment.
Streight testified to the following facts at the hearing.[5] Streight currently resides in Belvidere, Illinois, and is twenty years old. He took two years off after attending Sycamore High School in Sycamore, Illinois, and first enrolled in courses at RV C for the Fall 2021 term. He is majoring in Philosophy and would like to attend law school in the future. This semester, his first semester at RV C, he is enrolled in five, three-credit-hour general education courses for a total of fifteen hours. He attends these courses in person, Monday through Thursday. He has not attended courses remotely at RV C or during high school, though he does have a laptop or computer at home that he could use for remote learning. During the past two years, he worked jobs at several factories in the region. He is not currently vaccinated and has never taken a COVID test, either nasal or saliva. He stated that he had taken a saliva-based test once in the past as a drug test, and testified that he had received the required vaccines for elementary through high school. He was unaware of any adverse reactions to these vaccinations. Streight also testified that he was aware that RV C 's policy allows him to get a COVID-19 vaccine or take classes online to avoid the testing requirement.
RV C submitted an Affidavit from President Spearman, which included three emails from Spearman to the RV C student body about the school's COVID Response. Dkt. 36. The Illinois Board of Higher Education (IBHE) and Gov. Pritzker submitted an affidavit from Dr. Susan Casey Bleasdale, who is an Associate Professor of Clinical Medicine at University of Illinois and serves as a consultant to the Illinois Department of Public Health (IDPH) on the state's COVID-19 response. Dkt. 34-1, ¶¶ 1-4.
“A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy.” Tully v. Okeson, 977 F.3d 608, 612 (7th Cir. 2020) (quoting Whitaker v. Kenosha Unified Sch. Dist. No. 1 Bd of Educ., 858 F.3d 1034, 1044 (7th Cir. 2017)). A party seeking a preliminary injunction must establish two preliminary elements: “(1) some likelihood of succeeding on the merits, and (2) that it has no adequate remedy at law and will suffer irreparable harm if preliminary relief is denied.” Cassell v. Snyders, 990 F.3d 539, 544-45 (7th Cir. 2021) (internal citations omitted). If the party seeking the injunction can satisfy those threshold factors, the court must then consider two additional elements: “(3) the irreparable harm the non-moving party will suffer if preliminary relief is granted, balancing that harm against the irreparable harm to the moving party if relief is denied; and (4) the public interest, meaning the consequences of granting or denying the injunction to non-parties.” Id. at 545 (quoting Abbott Labs. v. Mead Johnson & Co., 971 F.2d 6, 11-12 (7th Cir. 1992)).
“In exercising their sound discretion, courts of equity should pay particular regard for the public consequences in employing the extraordinary remedy of injunction.” Winter v. Nat'l Resource Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008) (quoting Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U.S. 305, 312 (1982)). A preliminary injunction is a powerful tool of law, “never to be indulged in except in a case clearly demanding it.” Cassell, 990 F.3d at 544 (quoting Orr v. Shicker, 953 F.3d 490, 501 (7th Cir. 2020)). In the process, the Court is not bound by strict rules of evidence at a preliminary injunction hearing. See, e.g., Ty, Inc. v. GMA Accessories, Inc., 132 F.3d 1167, 1171 (7th Cir. 1997); Park Ridge Sports, Inc. v. Park Ridge Travel Falcons, No. 20-CV-2244, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 200094, *4 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 20, 2020); Rice v. Sapphire, No. 14 C 08675, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 203946, *6 n.3 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 24, 2014); Baker v. Int'l Union of Operating Engineers, Local 150, AFL-CIO, 641 F.Supp.2d 698, 700 n.1 (N.D. Ill. 2009); In re Roberts, 607 B.R. 635, 647-48 (Bankr. N.D.Ill. 2019) (collecting cases); Houdini Inc. v. Goody Baskets LLC, 166 Fed.Appx. 946, 947 (9th Cir. 2006) (). So, affidavits and declarations may be admitted into evidence. Hunter v. Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry. Co., 188 F.2d 294, 298 (7th Cir. 1951).
“The Federal Rules of Evidence permit a court to take judicial notice of a fact that is ‘not subject to reasonable dispute' because it is ‘generally known' or ‘can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose...
To continue reading
Request your trial