No. 25-1280October Term 2025Petition Pending
Sara Boysen, et al., Petitioners v. PeaceHealth, et al.
Sara Boysen and other petitioners ask the Supreme Court to review a Ninth Circuit case involving a state requirement that licensed professionals receive an investigational drug as a condition of working.
Case status
- Current stage
- Petition Pending
- Latest event
- Petition pending
- Decision timing
- No decision timeline until the Court agrees to hear the case.
- What it's about
Sara Boysen and other petitioners ask the Supreme Court to review a Ninth Circuit case involving a state requirement that licensed professionals receive an investigational drug as a condition of working. They argue that the requirement also forced them to give up the ability to seek court remedies for injuries and violated their Fourteenth Amendment due process rights.
Question presented
Whether the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, consistent with this Court’s precedents in Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905), Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (2010), and Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (1972), prohibits a State from conditioning an individual’s right to work in a licensed profession upon being injected with an investigational drug and waiving the right to seek judicial remedies for resulting injuries?
- Case path
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit / Petition pending
- Area
Petition for review pending
Briefing
What it's about
The petitioners ask whether a state may require people in licensed professions to receive an investigational drug and give up the right to sue over resulting injuries. The case comes from the Ninth Circuit, and the Supreme Court has not scheduled oral argument.
Argument
The case is pending. No oral argument has been scheduled, and no substantive justice or advocate reactions are available yet.
Impact
The case could affect workers in licensed fields, such as health care, if state rules tie professional employment to medical requirements. It also raises whether workers can be required to waive court remedies for injuries as a condition of working.
What is at stake in Boysen v. PeaceHealth?
The petition challenges whether a state can connect licensed professional work to receiving an investigational drug and waiving injury-related court claims.
Who could be affected by the Boysen case?
People working in state-licensed professions could be affected if their work is conditioned on medical requirements and limits on legal remedies.
What happens next in Boysen v. PeaceHealth?
The Supreme Court has not scheduled argument. Watch for an order on certiorari or another scheduling move from the Court.
Related cases
Grounding
- Grounding
- Primary materials plus reporting.
- Note
- Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.
- Checked
- Sep 2, 2026
- Method
- Methodology