Whether the district court committed an abuse of discretion by neglecting to enforce federal law regarding emergency use authorization (EUA) products and the right to refuse them without penalty

QUESTIONS PRESENTED The following questions are presented on this petition for writ of mandamus: 1. _It is undisputed that every FDA fact sheet for EUA Covid-19 vaccines states the same disclaimer, “It is your choice to receive or not receive the [Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, Janssen] COVID-19 Vaccine. Should you decide not to receive it, it will not change your standard medical care.” This precise language is required by Federal statute because available Covid-19 vaccines are not FDA approved but rather are Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) only. The same precise statutory language also applies for all Covid-19 tests and face coverings — they too are EUA and so pursuant to Federal statute if an individual declines these EUA products, it cannot change the individual’s standard medical care. And yet, as the Petitioner Immune Students in this case respectfully decline these EUA products, Respondent College Parties openly threaten to disenroll them and remove their standard healthcare offered through Student Health Services. Therefore, Respondent College Parties are openly lying to students (and therefore violating Federal Law) to promote College Parties’ highly suspect ‘separate but equal’ campus segregation policies. Students with natural immunity are treated like second class citizens (weekly swabs up the nose, i daily masks on the face, and more). Did the District Court commit an abuse of discretion by neglecting to enforce Federal law re EUA? 2. Petitioners (“Doctors & Immune Students”) applied for a narrow TRO upon an undeniable scientific consensus in America, as confirmed by the Respondent UC’s own doctor Joseph A. Ladapo, MD, PhD, associate professor with UCLA School of Medicine, whose supporting declaration for Petitioners in this case states, “The indisputable scientific facts are that natural immunity exists and is not arbitrarily limited to 90days, and current COVID-19 vaccines are a medical intervention that carry both known and unknown risks of injury”. Did the District Court commit an extreme departure from law by asserting informed refusal of a genetic vaccine is not a fundamental right requiring strict scrutiny?