Key Points
- Petition for Writ of Certiorari Filed: A coalition of former Bellingham city workers has filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court on August 24 in relation to rulings concerning COVID-19 vaccine mandates made by the lower courts.
- Affected Positions: The petitioners include former EMTs, police officers, firefighters, a senior inspector, and a wastewater collections supervisor.
- Source of Controversy: The legal dispute originated from an executive order of former Bellingham Mayor Seth Fleetwood made in September 2021 requiring city workers to be vaccinated against COVID-19.
- Legal Claims: The petitioners claim their firing, intentional infliction of emotional distress, due process violation, equal protection violation, and invasion of privacy since the vaccine is deemed an “investigational drug.”
- Legal History: In January 2025, the U.S. District Court dismissed the case with prejudice, and two U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit judges affirmed that ruling on May 26.
- Current Case Status: The city of Bellingham waived its option to file an immediate brief unless requested by the U.S. Supreme Court in relation to the latter’s ruling expected on September 30.
BELLINGHAM (Evening Washington News) September 3, 2026 — A legal battle concerning pandemic-era municipal employment policies has escalated to the highest court in the United States.
As reported by Hannah Edelman of The Bellingham Herald, a collective of former public servants in Washington state—including police officers, firefighters, and medical responders—has officially petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review their terminations following their refusal to comply with a local COVID-19 vaccine mandate.
The petition marks the latest chapter in a multi-year judicial conflict that tests the boundaries of municipal emergency powers, constitutional rights, and the legal classification of pandemic vaccines.
Why Are Fired Bellingham Employees Taking Their Case to the Supreme Court?
The legal friction originated from an executive order instituted in September 2021 by former Bellingham Mayor Seth Fleetwood, which mandated that all city personnel receive the COVID-19 vaccination. According to court documents outlined by Hannah Edelman of The Bellingham Herald, eighteen municipal workers—consisting of EMTs, police officers, firefighters, a senior inspector, and a wastewater collections supervisor—refused to comply and were subsequently stripped of their positions.
In June 2024, these workers initiated a federal lawsuit against both the municipal administration and former Mayor Seth Fleetwood. As detailed in reporting by Hannah Edelman of The Bellingham Herald, the initial complaint characterized the mayoral policy as unlawful, arbitrary, and demonstrating a “reckless, willful and wanton disregard for plaintiffs’ rights, safety and health”.
The former workers argued that the city stripped them of their fundamental option to refuse medical intervention, while violating constitutional guarantees surrounding due process, equal protection, and personal privacy. Furthermore, the plaintiffs asserted claims of wrongful termination and intentional infliction of emotional distress, while demanding punitive financial damages.
Explore More Bellingham News
Bellingham Rental Costs: Finding Affordable ZIP Codes in Bellingham 2026
Missing Indigenous Person Alert Issued for Terrence Charlie in Bellingham 2026
How Have the City of Bellingham and Lower Courts Responded?
The city mounted a robust defense against the allegations. As noted by Hannah Edelman of The Bellingham Herald, defense counsel for Bellingham systematically refuted the plaintiffs’ assertions, actively challenging the foundational premise that the COVID-19 vaccine qualified legally as an “investigational drug”. The municipality contended that the lawsuit suffered from critical failures to meet established legal standards governing public health mandates.
The legal arguments found immediate traction in the federal judiciary. In January 2025, the district court formally dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice, preventing the plaintiffs from refiling the same complaint. Undeterred, the dismissed employees escalated the dispute the following month to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. However, on May 26, a panel of two circuit judges upheld the lower district court’s decision, affirming the dismissal of the case.
What Are the Core Constitutional Questions Raised in the Supreme Court Petition?
Faced with consecutive defeats in lower jurisdictions, the plaintiffs submitted a petition for a writ of certiorari on August 24, asking the Supreme Court to command the lower courts to transmit the case record upward for comprehensive review.
As reported by Hannah Edelman of The Bellingham Herald, the formal petition emphasizes that lower courts allegedly failed to resolve a profound constitutional question: whether the 14th Amendment explicitly restrains states and their political subdivisions from forcing the administration of “new drugs” onto citizens. The petition emphasizes the gravity of the matter, stating:
“The questions presented are critically important, and the stakes are high because injecting investigational drugs can cause irreparable harm.”
What Happens Next in the Supreme Court Proceedings?
The municipal government of Bellingham has adopted a reserved stance regarding the Supreme Court petition. When contacted for comment, representatives for the city of Bellingham informed The Bellingham Herald that they currently have no comment on the petition. Complementing this position, an attorney representing the city filed an official waiver indicating that the respondents do not intend to submit a formal response brief unless the Supreme Court explicitly requests one.
The immediate future of the appeal rests squarely with the nation’s highest tribunal. The Supreme Court has logged the petition and established a deadline of September 30 for any preliminary actions or responses regarding whether the bench will grant certiorari. If accepted, the case could establish a sweeping national precedent regarding local government authority over public health emergencies and the constitutional limits of mandatory workplace medical interventions.
