Hey, there! Log in / Register

If one New England Law student wants to attend classes this fall, he needs to get vaccinated against Covid-19, judge rules

A New England Law student got a personalized lesson in federal constitutional, contract, sex-discrimination and "standing" law today when a federal judge dismissed his lawsuit that argued his "unconditional scholarship" to the Stuart Street school meant he doesn't have to get vaccinated against Covid-19.

Following a hearing this morning, US District Court Judge William Young dismissed George Artem's lawsuit against the school and its president, Scott Brown (yes, that Scott Brown), agreeing with its lawyers that in accepting his scholarship, Artem agreed to abide by New England Law school policies - and that, in any case, he signed a separate agreement specifically stating he would comply with the school's Covid-19 policy, which requires students to either show proof of vaccination before classes start this fall or convince the school they have a legitimate medical or religious reason to not get vaccinated.

In his lawsuit, filed just last month, Artem argued that by making him take an "experimental" vaccine, the school was violating various Constitutional rights under the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth amendments, as well as his rights guaranteed under a federal law known as Title IX, and besides, "unconditional" in his scholarship means the school can't set a vaccination condition.

The school countered, however, that, as a private institution, it's not a "state actor" and so cannot be held to violate rights against government action. It continued that Title IX deals specifically with gender-based discrimination and requiring students to get vaccinated does not have anything to do with sex discrimination.

Also, "unconditional scholarships" to graduate and law programs mean the scholarships can't be taken away if the recipient gets bad grades, not that he or she is free to disregard all school policies, the law school argued.

The Scholarship acceptance form makes clear that students were otherwise required to meet certain expectations, including complying with any student rules. ...

[I]n accepting admission to New England Law, Mr. Artem “agree[d] to abide by its rules and regulations.”

And, again, the school said, Artem specifically and separately signed an agreement to comply with school Covid-19 policies. So in conclusion, the school argued, he has no "standing" to bring a case.

Young dismissed Artem's case with prejudice, meaning Artem better not try to waste the judge's time with further motions. However, Artem does have the right to appeal the decision to the federal appeals court in Boston.


Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!


This guy should just shut up and get his shot. I'm also sure no one at the school will hold it against him that he, a recipient of a free ride, had the balls to sue the school.

Voting closed 76

Getting a full scholarship should never create the expectation of giving up any civil rights.

His problem is that "get a vaccine or go fish" does not violate his civil rights. Vaccine mandates in this country go back to before we even had a country - Washington required his troops to be inoculated against smallpox. Quarantine, stay at home mandates, vaccination, masks - all have been upheld repeatedly in the course of the history of the US.


Voting closed 54

There are more morons in this world than have been dreamt on in your philosophy Horatio.
They should rescind the scholarship based upon a frivolous law suit and an unsound mind.

Voting closed 35

From the Barnes and Noble of Artem’s seemingly self-published book, “Mania”.

Born in the Soviet Union in 1987, Artom George Katkoff immigrated to the United States with his immediate family in 1991 during the collapse of the Eastern Bloc…

In 2014, Artom was charged with attempted kidnapping in the second degree after showing concern for two young girls playing alone in his hometown park. He was held without arraignment for nearly eight weeks in solitary confinement at the King County Correctional Facility and suffered from a manic episode while he was incarcerated.

In 2016, now George Artem, he sued King County as a pro se party on the grounds that his due process rights were violated, that solitary confinement was deliberately indifferent to the needs of a manic-depressive, and that he and others in solitary confinement were not offered equal treatment under the Americans with Disabilities Act. After years of litigation, his petition for writ of certiorari was finally denied by the United States Supreme Court in 2020.

This book and a statement about New England Law can be found on Artem’s Twitter feed, confirming that it’s the same guy.

Voting closed 57

United States Supreme Court in 2020 is not a supreme moral authority in my book.

Voting closed 35

United States Supreme Court in 2020 is not a supreme moral authority in my book.

The United States Supreme Court is and always has been a legal authority, and is not nor was it ever intended to be a moral authority.

Voting closed 80

I'll recommend him for Mass Bar admission, but only if he agrees to never handle anything other than Federal litigation.

Voting closed 37


oh do please everyone do yourselves a favor and take a gander at their "Featured Books"

Voting closed 38

With a funhouse mirror.

Voting closed 34

I’ll save you the law school class on Education Law: The school always wins.

(Not that I think anyone has the right to fight a vaccine mandate in any context.)

Voting closed 30