Appendix Table of Contents Order denying emergency motion for injunctive relief pending appeal, Ryan Klaassen, et al. v. Trustees of Indiana University, No. 21-2326 (7th Cir.) . 1a Order denying motion for an injunction pending appeal, Ryan Klaassen, et al. v. Trustees of Indiana University, No. 1:21-CV-238 DRL-SLC (N.D. Ind.) . 5a Opinion and Order, Ryan Klaassen, et al. v. Trustees of Indiana University, No. 1:21-CV-238 DRL-SLC (N.D. Ind.).............................. 8a U.S. Const. amend XIV ............................................. 109a Verified Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, Ryan Klaassen, et al. v. Trustees of Indiana University, No. 1:21-CV-238 (N.D. Ind.). 111a Emergency Motion for an Injunction Pending Appeal Relief, Ryan Klaassen, et al. v. Trustees of Indiana University, No. 21-2326 (7th Cir.) .................... 166a Reply in Support of Emergency Motion for an Injunction Pending Appeal Relief, Ryan Klaassen, et al. v. Trustees of Indiana University, No. 21-2326 (7th Cir.) . 197a Case: 21-2326 Document: 13 Filed: 08/02/2021 Pages: 4 In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit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ppendix 1a Case: 21-2326 Document: 13 Filed: 08/02/2021 Pages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ppendix 2a Case: 21-2326 Document: 13 Filed: 08/02/2021 Pages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ppendix 3a Case: 21-2326 Document: 13 Filed: 08/02/2021 Pages: 4 :K &AK87H898<K $,*+K.) +K/$*K&)K**0*K*K)(, )AKBKAABK' !%' ' ' ' ' $##BK 7;K A9K <>6BK <>=K D=+K )AK 7??:ECK '!%'BK?7;KA9K96>KD:+K )AK867?ECK '!%' '' 'BK>8=KA8K<>:KD77+K )AK7?>=EAKK *+,%+K+&#K+&K%#01K+K)&#K&K% # *$K %K&*+&-*"0F*K ' K,+K.&K*,$ +*K%K**0K&,+K &F*K$&+ -H + &%*K %K K. ##K3,%"AK K&% + &%*K&K )K,+ &%K$0K %#,K*,))%)H %K')&')+0K%K&##&. %K %*+),+ &%*K&,+K.+K+&K)K %K.) +BK +K *K)K+&K*KK)+)K')&#$K. +K$ #K &% + &%*K++K#'K##K*+,%+*K)$ %K*K.%K#)% %AK K,% -)* +0K. ##K-K+)&,#K&')+ %K.%KK*+,%+K )*K++K-)0&%K#*K$0KK*') %K **AK.K'&H '#K.%+K+&K)+,)%K+&K)$&+K,+ &%J%K.K&K%&+K+ %"K ++K+K&%*+ +,+ &%K&)*K+K *+%H#)% %K'')&K&%K K,% -)* +0K++K# -*K- %+ &%KD&)K$*"*K%K)(,%+K +*+ %K&K+K,%- %+EK. ##K$"K %H')*&%K&')+ &%*K *K%&,AK K$&+ &%K&)K%K %!,%+ &%K'% %K''#K *K% AK Appendix 4a USDC IN/ND case 1:21-cv-00238-DRL-SLC document 40 filed 07/21/21 page 1 of 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA FORT WAYNE DIVISION RYAN KLAASSEN et al., Plaintiffs, v. CAUSE NO. 1:21-CV-238 DRL-SLC THE TRUSTEES OF INDIANA UNIVERSITY, Defendant. ORDER The students move to enjoin Indiana University from enforcing its vaccination policy pending their appeal. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(d). The court reviews this motion under generally the same analysis governing the preliminary injunction motion. Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987); Cavel Int’l, Inc. v. Madigan, 500 F.3d 544, 547-48 (7th Cir. 2007); see, e.g., Korte v. Sebelius, 528 F. Appx. 583, 585-86 (7th Cir. 2012). If the court only had another five days for its preliminary injunction ruling, it would have been shorter. Fair to say the court needn’t elaborate on a 101-page opinion. The students never made a strong showing that they were likely to succeed on their constitutional claim’s merits. As it turns out, they only made a soft showing. In this motion, the students posit strict scrutiny by theorizing an expansion of Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973). The court declines to view that theory of error as strong. It stands in contrast to the Constitution, and longstanding precedent from the United States Supreme Court. See Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 720-21 (1997); Zucht v. King, 260 U.S. 174, 176-77 (1922); Jacobson v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 24-25 Appendix 5a USDC IN/ND case 1:21-cv-00238-DRL-SLC document 40 filed 07/21/21 page 2 of 3 (1905); see also Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124, 163 (2007); Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dept. of Health 497 U.S. 261, 279 (1990); Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210, 221-22 (1990). For any number of reasons articulated in the court’s prior opinion, the students lack irreparable harm or an inadequate remedy at law. Indeed, they have many choices available to them that avoid any irreparable harm they perceive in the vaccine policy. Only in the sense of a constitutional violation have they advanced these requirements, albeit again dimly on this record. The balance of harms and public interest remain undisturbed and now likewise oppose any stay pending appeal. The court addressed these issues in full in its prior opinion. In this motion, the students say their constitutional claim is strong, but it isn’t. That low likelihood of success requires from the students a greater showing of the balance of harms. See Turnell v. CentiMark Corp., 796 F.3d 656, 662 (7th Cir. 2015). For that, the students say the COVID-19 risks have significantly declined, a large measure of the university’s population has been vaccinated, and their decision won’t harm the university or others. COVID-19 risks are lower than at the pandemic’s height because of vaccinations; but viral risks prove ever potent, particularly to those who have awaited or foregone vaccination as variants circle and the pandemic persists. In actuality, at least at last count, many thousands of students remained to be vaccinated at the university. And staying the policy pending appeal risks more harm than not. Add to what the court said Sunday the additional concern today that a stay introduces greater confusion, not less, as to a student’s obligation mere weeks before the fall semester begins in August 2021, particularly given the need to receive the vaccine (if 2 Appendix 6a USDC IN/ND case 1:21-cv-00238-DRL-SLC document 40 filed 07/21/21 page 3 of 3 not exempted) and then to wait two weeks after the last dose for it to take hold.