No. 25-1327October Term 2025Before Arguments
Jane Elizabeth Roberts, et al., Petitioners v. Bob Ferguson, Governor of Washington, 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
1. Whether the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits a State from mandating that an individual accept the administration of a drug that is exempt from 21 U.S.C. § 355(a) — on penalty of losing benefits — where the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act expressly requires the Secretary to ensure such administration is the product of voluntary, informed consent. 2. Whether a State mandate for an individual to accept the administration of a covered countermeasure is consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment insofar as the PREP Act’s immunity clause of 42 U.S.C. § 247d-6d(a)(1), upon administration, extinguishes the right to access courts if injured by the countermeasure.
- 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
This case asks whether Washington can require a person to accept a drug or covered countermeasure to keep benefits. It also asks whether that kind of mandate violates the Fourteenth Amendment when federal law requires voluntary, informed consent and PREP Act immunity may block injury suits.
Argument
The case is still pending at the petition stage, and no oral argument is scheduled. The petition asks the Court to review whether Washington may tie benefits to accepting a drug or covered countermeasure under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Impact
The case could affect people who depend on state benefits and refuse a covered countermeasure. It also matters for people who say they were injured after administration and want access to court.
What is Jane Elizabeth Roberts v. Ferguson about?
It asks whether Washington can require someone to accept a drug or covered countermeasure to keep benefits. It also asks whether federal consent rules and PREP Act immunity make that mandate unconstitutional.
Who could be affected by Roberts v. Ferguson?
People who rely on state benefits could be affected if refusing a covered countermeasure leads to losing those benefits. People claiming an injury after administration also have a stake if PREP Act immunity blocks court claims.
What happens next in Jane Elizabeth Roberts v. Ferguson?
The Supreme Court must first decide whether to hear the case. No oral argument is scheduled, and the docket shows no decision window 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 17, 2026
- Method
- Methodology