No. 25-1280October Term 2025Before Arguments
Sara Boysen, et al., Petitioners v. PeaceHealth, et al.
from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Case status
- Current stage
- Before Arguments
- Latest event
- Accepted by the Court
- Decision timing
- No window until argument is scheduled.
- What it's about
from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
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 / Accepted by the Court
- Area
Supreme Court case awaiting argument
Timing
Expected by late June 2026, if argued this term
The Court granted review but has not yet scheduled oral argument. Once argued, the median case reaches a decision in 94 days. Nearly all cases are decided by the end of the term in which they are argued.
Briefing
What it's about
The Supreme Court has been asked to review a Ninth Circuit case about whether a state can make someone in a licensed profession take an investigational drug to keep working. The petition asks whether the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause bars that condition, especially if the person must also give up court claims for resulting injuries.
Argument
No oral argument is scheduled. The petition asks whether due process blocks a state from conditioning licensed work on an investigational injection and a waiver of judicial remedies.
Impact
The case could affect people in state-licensed jobs if a state ties their ability to work to a medical requirement and a waiver of injury claims. For example, a licensed worker could face a choice between keeping a job and giving up the right to sue over an alleged injury.
What is Boysen v. PeaceHealth about?
The petition asks whether due process lets a state tie licensed work to taking an investigational drug. It also challenges requiring a waiver of court claims for resulting injuries.
Who could be affected by Boysen v. PeaceHealth?
People in state-licensed jobs could be affected if their work depends on state medical requirements. The case could shape whether they can sue over alleged injuries tied to those requirements.
What happens next in Boysen v. PeaceHealth?
The justices must decide whether to hear the case. No argument is scheduled, and no decision window is available yet.
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
- Jul 18, 2026
- Method
- Methodology