{"id":1222289,"date":"2022-01-18T14:10:03","date_gmt":"2022-01-18T19:10:03","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/?p=1222289"},"modified":"2022-01-18T14:10:15","modified_gmt":"2022-01-18T19:10:15","slug":"legal-experts-respond-to-supreme-courts-split-decision-on-vaccine-mandates","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/legal-experts-respond-to-supreme-courts-split-decision-on-vaccine-mandates\/","title":{"rendered":"Legal Experts Respond to Supreme Court\u2019s Split Decision on Vaccine Mandates"},"content":{"rendered":"<aside class=\"mashsb-container mashsb-main mashsb-stretched\"><div class=\"mashsb-box\"><div class=\"mashsb-count mash-medium\" style=\"&quot;\"><div class=\"counts mashsbcount\">22<\/div><span class=\"mashsb-sharetext\">SHARES<\/span><\/div><div class=\"mashsb-buttons\"><a class=\"mashicon-facebook mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservativenewsdaily.net%2Fbreaking-news%2Flegal-experts-respond-to-supreme-courts-split-decision-on-vaccine-mandates%2F\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Facebook<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-twitter mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/intent\/tweet?text=&amp;url=https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/?p=1222289&amp;via=ConservNewsDly\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Twitter<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-subscribe mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"#\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Subscribe<\/span><\/a><div class=\"onoffswitch2 mash-medium mashsb-noshadow\" style=\"display:none\"><\/div><\/div>\n            <\/div>\n                <div style=\"clear:both\"><\/div><\/aside>\n            <!-- Share buttons by mashshare.net - Version: 4.0.47--><p>The Supreme Court\u2019s decision blocking the Biden administration\u2019s private-sector vaccination regime was viewed positively by legal experts consulted by The Epoch Times but the other decision allowing the mandate requiring health care workers to get vaccinated against COVID-19 received a mixed reception.<\/p>\n<p>The rulings <a href=\"https:\/\/www.theepochtimes.com\/supreme-court-blocks-business-vaccine-rule-declines-to-stay-healthcare-worker-mandate_4211577.html\">came mid-afternoon on Jan. 13<\/a> after the high court <a href=\"https:\/\/www.theepochtimes.com\/supreme-court-seems-skeptical-of-biden-vaccination-mandates_4198181.html\">heard oral arguments on Jan. 7<\/a> about the two separate mandates on an emergency basis. An array of business groups, along with Ohio, Missouri, Louisiana, and two dozen other states, asked for the federal mandates to be blocked.<\/p>\n<p>The ruling allowing compulsory vaccination of health care workers is a \u201cterrible\u201d decision that is \u201cgoing to result in people dying,\u201d Robert&nbsp;Henneke&nbsp;of the&nbsp;Texas Public Policy Foundation,&nbsp;told The Epoch Times.<\/p>\n<p>The Supreme Court voted 6-3 to block the mandate issued by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), finding the challenge to it was likely to succeed. The rule forced employers with at least 100 employees \u2013or most of the nation\u2019s private workforce\u2014 to subject their employees to vaccinations aimed at preventing COVID-19 or to regular testing to detect it.<\/p>\n<p>The decision split cleanly along partisan lines.<\/p>\n<p>All Republican appointees on the high court\u2013Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett\u2014were in the majority in the court\u2019s <a href=\"https:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/opinions\/21pdf\/21a244_hgci.pdf\">opinion<\/a> in National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) v. Department of Labor.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cAdministrative agencies are creatures of statute\u201d and \u201cpossess only the authority that Congress has provided,\u201d the majority opinion states. \u201cThe Secretary has ordered 84 million Americans to either obtain a COVID\u201319 vaccine or undergo weekly medical testing at their own expense. This is no \u2018everyday exercise of federal power.\u2019 It is instead a significant encroachment into the lives\u2014and health\u2014of a&nbsp;vast number of employees.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>\u201cAlthough COVID-19 is a risk that occurs in many workplaces, it is not an&nbsp;<em>occupational<\/em>&nbsp;hazard in most. COVID-19 can and does spread at home, in schools, during sporting events, and everywhere else that people gather,\u201d the opinion continues.<\/p>\n<p>All the Democratic appointees\u2013Justices Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor\u2014would have allowed the mandate to go forward. Their dissenting opinion states that the court \u201cseriously misapplies the applicable legal standards\u201d and \u201cstymies the Federal Government\u2019s ability to counter the unparalleled threat that COVID\u201319 poses to our Nation\u2019s workers.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Henneke,&nbsp;who represented a coalition of Texas temporary staffing companies in the OSHA challenge, was pleased to win but wary of the reasoning adopted by the high court.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cWithout the constitutional questions being taken on by the Supreme Court, we\u2019ve won the battle today, but we still are left fighting the war,\u201d he told The Epoch Times.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cIt\u2019s the correct outcome but unfortunately the majority opinion misses the forest for the trees because it doesn\u2019t address except in touching reference \u2026 the bigger constitutional issues or defects in the Biden administration\u2019s claim of authority.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>\u201cBy narrowly ruling on a very focused, textual statutory analysis of the OSHA statute, the court invites further creativity by this administration to look for other statutes to claim novel and unprecedented power.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Jim Burling, vice president of legal affairs for the Pacific Legal Foundation, said he was pleased the OSHA ruling limits executive branch authority.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cThis ruling has an importance that extends beyond the confines of these cases and may have a lasting effect on the executive branch\u2019s behavior.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Burling said the court recognized the importance of the separation of powers, \u201cwhere the legislature passes the laws, where the executive [enforces] those laws, and the judiciary is the traditional arbiter of whether the law is being followed.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>\u201cThis is a really important thing for our liberty, as James Madison pointed out in the Federalist Papers, when the Constitution was being debated, that when you have these parts of government together in one person, that\u2019s the very definition of tyranny.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Curt Levey, president of the Committee for Justice, said the ruling \u201cwas a victory for the Constitution because it reminded the administrative state that its job is to interpret statutes, not to expand them.\u201d Levey said he was happy the decision \u201cemphasizes separation of powers \u2026 if you know there\u2019s going to be an OSHA that\u2019s going to be in charge of vaccine mandates, that\u2019s got to come from Congress, not from the executive branch.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>The Supreme Court voted 5-4 to lift lower court stays that had halted enforcement of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) emergency regulation, finding the government\u2019s challenge to it would probably be successful. The rule, now in effect, requires more than 10 million employees at health care facilities that participate in the Medicare and Medicaid programs to be vaccinated against COVID-19.<\/p>\n<p>In this case, all three liberal justices\u2013Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor\u2014sided with the government in the court\u2019s <a href=\"https:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/opinions\/21pdf\/21a240_d18e.pdf\">opinion<\/a> in Biden v. Missouri. Two conservatives, Roberts and Kavanaugh, also sided with the government.<\/p>\n<p>The majority opinion states: \u201cCongress did grant authority to the health secretary to promulgate\u201d regulations he considers necessary to protect health and safety. Although a vaccination mandate is unprecedented, \u201cwe agree with the government that the Secretary\u2019s rule falls within the authorities that Congress has conferred upon him,\u201d they added.<\/p>\n<p>Thomas wrote a dissenting opinion that was joined by Alito, Gorsuch, and Barrett.<\/p>\n<p>The case is \u201conly about whether [HHS] has the statutory authority to force health care workers, by coercing their employers, to undergo a medical procedure they do not want and cannot undo. Because the Government has not made a strong showing that Congress gave [HHS] that broad authority, I would deny the stays pending appeal,\u201d the dissent states.<\/p>\n<p>Levey said the HHS ruling was a closer call than the OSHA ruling.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cYou can always make an argument about how somehow this is regulating occupational safety and Health, as the court said, where this is really about regulating public health, and that\u2019s not within OSHA\u2019s power.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>But with the HHS case, \u201cit was a closer fit,\u201d Levey said.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cAnyone listening to that argument would have said, \u2018yeah, when I think of regulating health care facilities and health care workers, this seems like a natural fit, whereas the other was just commandeering employers to do something that really has no relationship to employment.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>But Henneke was critical of the HHS mandate ruling.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cI think it\u2019s a terrible decision, and I\u2019m fearful that it\u2019s going to be immediately disastrous and disruptive to our healthcare industry, and it\u2019s going to result in people dying.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>The ruling \u201cgives far too much deference to a broad and vague reading of an ambiguous statute\u201d related to HHS that the Biden administration claimed gave this authority to the federal government.<\/p>\n<p>The decision will inflict \u201cdamage\u201d on the health care system and will lead to \u201clayoffs and staffing shortages,\u201d which will make things \u201cdangerous and damaging,\u201d especially in rural settings.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cRural areas already have a very difficult time in obtaining sufficient workers to provide staffing for rural health care needs,\u201d Henneke said.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cEven if it\u2019s only 10 to 15 percent of the workforce, that has at this point not taken the COVID vaccine, eliminating that staffing in short order from a rural Texas nursing home,\u201d will create serious problems.<\/p>\n<p><em>Zachary Stieber contributed to this article.<\/em><\/p>\n<div class=\"author_wrapper\">\n<div class=\"one_author_block round\">\n<div class=\"top_row\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<a href=\"https:\/\/www.theepochtimes.com\/author-matthew-vadum\"><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/08\/15f0e01dec0339a2_ttl7day1Kj_15f046908d42a822_ttl7daybmp_Matthew_vadum.jpeg\" alt=\"Matthew Vadum\" \/><\/a><\/p>\n<div class=\"names\">\n<p>contributor<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<p>Follow<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<p>Matthew Vadum is an award-winning investigative journalist and a recognized expert in left-wing activism.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The Supreme Court\u2019s decision blocking the Biden administration\u2019s private-sector vaccination regime was viewed positively by legal experts consulted by The Epoch Times but the other decision allowing the mandate requiring &#8230;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":2315279,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_mo_disable_npp":"","fifu_image_url":"","fifu_image_alt":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1222289","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1222289","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1222289"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1222289\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2315279"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1222289"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1222289"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1222289"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}