Pfizer stock-owning judges play musical chairs in New York City vaccine mandate lawsuits

What do you do when you can’t find a judge who doesn’t own Pfizer stock? Keep looking. Then look again—and again.

Such was plaintiffs’ plight this week in two consolidated federal lawsuits taking aim at the New York City Department of Education’s COVID-19 vaccine mandates. Since Monday, two judges have come and gone, thanks to their financial ties to pandemic vaccine companies. Meanwhile, a third has vowed to stick around, arguing her investments in Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson are out of date.

The stock-owning saga kicked off Monday, when U.S. district Judge Valerie Caproni in New York’s Southern District recused (PDF) herself from the lawsuits. The move followed plaintiffs’ efforts last Thursday to disqualify Caproni after discovering she held up to $100,000 in Pfizer stock in 2020.

The court then appointed another judge, Edgardo Ramos, to the case, but plaintiffs were quick to file a joint motion (PDF) to disqualify him, too. They cited a 2020 disclosure that showed holdings in Pfizer, AstraZeneca and other biopharma companies.

Come Tuesday, Ramos had recused himself as well, replaced by Judge Naomi Buchwald. But if you thought the ordeal stopped there, you’re wrong.

Plaintiffs on Tuesday filed yet another motion to disqualify Buchwald after learning that she held $250,000 in Pfizer stock and $100,000 in Johnson & Johnson stock as of 2020.

Buchwald, meanwhile, is standing her ground. The judge on Wednesday denied (PDF) plaintiffs’ bid to disqualify her from the case. In the court documents filed earlier this week, the court says the plaintiffs’ motion was denied because “the application is based on outdated information.”

It's against federal law for judges to be involved in a case where they have any financial interest. In April, The Wall Street Journal reported that more than 150 judges around the country have ruled on cases where they or their family members had a financial interest.