New Jersey Bills S4894 & S4726
Administrative Power Grab: December 5, 2025 Memos Reveal Intent
TIME-SENSITIVE ALERT: These bills are pending in the New Jersey Legislature. Immediate action required to oppose or demand amendments.
On December 5, 2025, two New Jersey state agencies released coordinated policy directives that demonstrate the operational framework of pending legislation S4894 and S4726. These memos reveal a fundamental restructuring of public health authority that eliminates federal oversight and centralizes power within state agencies, creating a system where unelected bureaucrats can impose binding medical requirements without legislative approval or public input.
This case study demonstrates how constitutional principles—particularly Prerequisites to Office, Void Ab Initio challenges, and Separation of Powers—can be applied to challenge and reverse unconstitutional government actions.
The Two December 5, 2025 Memos
What It Did:
- • Reinstated universal Hepatitis B birth dose requirement in NJ
- • Declared NJ will follow its own vaccine schedule, NOT federal ACIP
- • Required providers to follow DOH-endorsed AAP recommendations
- • Took effect immediately without legislative approval or public comment
What It Mandated:
- • All insurance companies must follow NJDOH vaccine guidance, not federal ACIP
- • Provide coverage for all DOH-recommended childhood vaccines
- • Apply no cost-sharing and no administrative barriers
- • Encouraged even non-state-regulated plans to follow NJDOH recommendations
Critical Observation:
Both memos took effect immediately with no legislative vote, no public hearing, and no comment period. DOBI turned NJDOH's recommendation into a universal insurance mandate the same day. This demonstrates the coordinated enforcement mechanism that S4894 and S4726 would codify permanently.
The Pending Legislation
Removes ACIP (Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices) as the reference point in all NJ statutes and regulations, replacing it with "NJ Department of Health guidance."
Impact Areas:
- • Newborn vaccine dosing
- • School & childcare requirements
- • College requirements
- • Healthcare worker requirements
- • Insurance coverage mandates
- • Medical exemption criteria
Critical Issue: No independent review panel, no legislative oversight, no requirement for public input.
Strengthens DOH's authority in enforcing communicable disease rules and ensures cross-agency compliance with DOH directives.
Enforcement Scope:
- • Licensing boards
- • Professional standards
- • Educational institutions
- • Childcare centers
- • Healthcare facilities
- • Long-term care facilities
Creates unified enforcement apparatus: DOH issues directive → all state agencies must comply → immediate statewide mandate.
Constitutional Violations
The executive branch (NJDOH/DOBI) is consolidating three distinct governmental functions that the Constitution requires to be separated:
- Legislative Function: Creating binding policy (vaccine schedules, insurance mandates)
- Executive Function: Enforcing their own rules across all state agencies
- Quasi-Judicial Function: Setting standards and determining compliance
This consolidation of powers violates the fundamental constitutional principle that prevents tyranny through checks and balances.
The legislature cannot delegate its lawmaking power to executive agencies without:
- Intelligible Principle: Clear guidance on how discretion should be exercised
- Clear Standards: Defined limits on agency authority
- Meaningful Limits: Boundaries on what agencies can mandate
S4894 violates all three requirements by giving NJDOH unlimited discretion to set vaccine policy with no external reference point (ACIP eliminated) and no meaningful limits.
The December 5 memos demonstrate systematic due process violations:
- No Notice: Policy changes take effect immediately without advance warning
- No Opportunity to Be Heard: No public comment period or hearing process
- No Administrative Review: No appeal mechanism for affected parties
- Immediate Enforcement: Compliance required instantly with no transition period
These procedural violations deny citizens the fundamental right to participate in decisions that affect their bodily autonomy and parental rights.
Actions taken without proper constitutional authority are void from inception—they have no legal effect and need not be obeyed:
- Executive Directives Without Legislative Authorization: NJDOH cannot create binding law
- Insurance Mandates Without Statutory Basis: DOBI exceeded its regulatory authority
- Officials Acting Outside Scope of Office: No lawful authority to override federal standards
All actions based on these void directives are nullities and can be challenged as having no legal force or effect.
Example Documents
This comprehensive email to Senators Joseph F. Vitale and Andrew Zwicker (primary sponsors of S4894/S4726) demonstrates how to incorporate the four constitutional violations into effective legislative advocacy. The email includes:
- • Separation of Powers Analysis: How NJDOH consolidates legislative, executive, and quasi-judicial functions
- • Non-Delegation Doctrine Violations: Lack of intelligible principle, clear standards, and meaningful limits
- • Due Process Violations: No notice, no hearing, no appeal mechanism
- • Void Ab Initio Principle: Actions without authority are void from inception
- • Specific Amendment Requests: Independent oversight, legislative approval requirements, due process protections
Key Excerpt - Separation of Powers:
"By eliminating ACIP as an external reference point and replacing it with 'NJDOH guidance,' S4894 grants the Department of Health the power to create binding policy—a core legislative function. The December 5, 2025 Executive Directive 25-005 demonstrates this in practice: NJDOH unilaterally declared New Jersey would follow 'its own vaccine schedule, NOT federal ACIP' and reinstated the universal Hepatitis B birth dose requirement. This is lawmaking, not law enforcement."
Key Excerpt - Requested Amendments:
"Establish an independent oversight committee with authority to review and approve/reject major NJDOH policy changes before implementation. Require legislative approval for adding new vaccines to mandatory schedule, removing exemptions, or rejecting federal ACIP guidance. Mandate 60-day public comment period and independent administrative review board for appeals."
Customize with your personal information and send to your state legislators. CC your local media and advocacy organizations for maximum impact.
Quo Warranto Deployment: Risk Analysis
Important Strategic Consideration
Quo Warranto challenges present significant opportunities but also substantial risks. This analysis evaluates legal, political, and strategic dimensions to help you make informed decisions about deployment.
Standing Requirements
Courts may require direct injury, particularized harm, and causation. Mitigation: Choose relators with clear standing (parents, healthcare providers, insurers directly affected).
Political Question Doctrine
Courts may decline to hear as "political question." Mitigation: Frame as authority challenge (process), not policy challenge (substance).
Mootness from Legislative Action
S4894/S4726 passage may moot challenge. Mitigation: File immediately, request expedited review, preserve void ab initio argument.
Judicial Deference
Courts may defer to agency expertise. Mitigation: Cite recent anti-deference trends (Loper Bright 2024), emphasize constitutional limits.
"Anti-Vaccine" Labeling
Media may frame as anti-vaccine activism. Mitigation: Lead with constitutional arguments, recruit diverse coalition, proactive media strategy.
"Undermining Public Health" Narrative
Portrayed as endangering children. Mitigation: Emphasize long-term consequences of unchecked power, propose alternative solutions.
Retaliation Against Relators
Individuals may face agency scrutiny or harassment. Mitigation: Document everything, preemptive legal warnings, media attention to deter retaliation.
Legislative Backlash
May accelerate S4894/S4726 passage. Mitigation: Coordinate with legislative strategy, build grassroots opposition, prepare for next challenge.
Legal Merit
MODERATE
TO HIGH
Success Probability
30-50%
Political Risk
HIGH
Strategic Value
HIGH
Recommendation:
Deploy Quo Warranto challenges as part of a comprehensive multi-pronged strategy, not as a standalone tactic. Combine with legislative action, public records requests, and media engagement to maximize impact while mitigating risks. Optimal timing window: January to March 2026 (after enforcement creates standing, before S4894/S4726 passage moots challenge).
Phase 1: Information Gathering (Weeks 1-4)
File public records requests for NJDOH/DOBI coordination documents, legal opinions, and official oaths/bonds. Research statutory authority thoroughly. Identify potential relators.
Phase 2: Administrative Challenges (Weeks 5-8)
File administrative appeals of enforcement actions. Exhaust administrative remedies. Document agency responses. Build record for judicial review.
Phase 3: Legislative Advocacy (Weeks 9-12)
Submit legislative opposition letters. Testify at committee hearings. Engage media on constitutional concerns. Build public pressure for amendments.
Phase 4: Quo Warranto Filing (Weeks 13-16, if necessary)
File only if legislative advocacy fails, S4894/S4726 advance without amendments, administrative remedies exhausted, strong relators identified, and funding secured.
Legal Remedies & Action Steps
Challenge the authority of NJDOH and DOBI officials to exercise legislative powers:
- • "By what warrant do you override federal law?"
- • "By what warrant do you eliminate parental rights?"
- • Demand proof of constitutional authority for unilateral directives
- • Challenge bonds and oaths of officials implementing unconstitutional policies
Verify that officials implementing these directives have met constitutional requirements:
- • Do NJDOH/DOBI officials have proper constitutional oaths on file?
- • Are they bonded for actions outside scope of authority?
- • Have they violated their oath by implementing unconstitutional policies?
- • Does violation of oath create automatic vacancy of office?
Related Resources
Learn how oath and bond requirements create accountability and provide mechanisms for challenging officials who fail to meet constitutional standards.
Explore void ab initio challenges, Section 1983 lawsuits, and other legal strategies for challenging unconstitutional government actions.
Understand how officials without lawful office have no immunity, and how constitutional violations can pierce qualified immunity defenses.