Mask Mandates

If the CDC's Mask Mandate Is 'Necessary for the Public Health,' Why Didn't the DOJ Seek a Stay To Restore It?

The Biden administration's main priority seems to be leaving the agency's authority vague enough to allow future interventions.

|

After a federal judge vacated the federal mask mandate for travelers last week, the Justice Department waited two days before filing an appeal. It said an appeal was contingent on whether the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) thought the mandate "remains necessary for public health." On Wednesday evening, the CDC confirmed that, in its view, "an order requiring masking in the indoor transportation corridor remains necessary for the public health."

Yet while the Justice Department is now asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit to review U.S. District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle's ruling against the mask mandate, it did not seek a stay that would allow the CDC to reinstate this supposedly necessary edict while the case is pending. The mandate's supporters say the appeal is aimed not at restoring the mask requirement so much as upholding the CDC's lawful public health authority. The contours of that authority remain nebulous, however, and the version promoted by the agency's defenders is alarmingly broad.

"Basically, [the Biden administration] is giving up on the mask mandate," Georgetown University law professor Lawrence Gostin told The New York Times on Friday. "The administration's goal is a legal principle, which is to ensure that the CDC has strong public health powers to fight COVID and to fight future pandemics. And it appears much less important to them to quickly reinstate the mask mandate."

Gostin, who according to the Times "advised the White House on the case," elaborates on that "legal principle" in a Times opinion piece published today. "Should the federal government have the power to address broad public health emergencies?" Gostin and civil rights lawyer Duncan Hosie write. As they see it, Mizelle "effectively answered no."

Regardless of what you think about the wisdom of the CDC's mask mandate, Gostin and Hosie say, "you should be alarmed by her decision," because it "could prevent the federal government from effectively and nimbly responding to future pandemics." Worse, "her approach and rationale could undermine the federal government's authority to confront other big problems, from occupational health and safety to climate change."

Gostin and Hosie see the mask mandate as a straightforward example of administrative law, which allows executive agencies to "fill in the details" based on a general charge from Congress. "Up until very recently, the statutory authority of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to try to curb the interstate or international transmission of an infectious, deadly disease was not in doubt," they write. "The Public Health Service Act authorizes the C.D.C. to 'make and enforce such regulations' that in its 'judgment are necessary to prevent the introduction, transmission or spread of communicable diseases.'"

Gostin and Hosie are quoting from the first sentence of 42 USC 264(a), the provision that the CDC cited as the legal basis for requiring that air travelers, public transit users, and taxi or ride-share passengers wear face masks. But as the Supreme Court noted when it blocked the CDC's eviction moratorium, reading that opening sentence as a general grant of power "would give the CDC a breathtaking amount of authority."

All sorts of restrictions and requirements—including nationwide lockdowns, a general vaccine mandate, and highly invasive limits on personal behavior—could be justified in the name of disease control. As the Court observed, "it is hard to see what measures this interpretation would place outside the CDC's reach, and the Government has identified no limit…beyond the requirement that the CDC deem a measure 'necessary.'" The Court found it highly implausible that such powers were lurking in a rarely used statutory provision, only to be discovered by the CDC 76 years after the law was enacted.

It is doubtful that the delegation of such vast authority to the CDC would be consistent with the separation of powers, which limits the executive branch's role in lawmaking, or with federalism, since protecting public health is primarily a state and local function. That broad interpretation of Section 264(a) also seems inconsistent with the list of specific disease control measures that follows the opening sentence: "inspection, fumigation, disinfection, sanitation, pest extermination, [and] destruction of animals or articles found to be so infected or contaminated as to be sources of dangerous infection to human beings."

If the CDC had plenary power to "prevent the introduction, transmission or spread of communicable diseases," there would be no need to mention specific policies. And while Section 264(a) also refers to "other measures" deemed "necessary," the Supreme Court concluded that the list of specific examples "informs the grant of authority by illustrating the kinds of measures that could be necessary."

The question for Mizelle, then, was whether the CDC's mask mandate was similar to any of the listed measures. The CDC argued that the policy fell under the heading of "sanitation." In her 59-page ruling, Mizelle offered several reasons for rejecting that interpretation.

Mizelle said common usage when Congress passed the Public Health Service Act in 1944 suggested that "sanitation" should be read narrowly, encompassing measures that involve cleaning something rather than keeping something clean. She noted that Section 264(a) seems "limited to property," while other provisions of the Public Health Service Act deal with isolation and quarantine of individuals. If "sanitation" were read as broadly as the CDC prefers, she said, it would subsume other measures on the list, again raising the question of why Congress bothered to mention them.

Mizelle also was concerned that the CDC's understanding of "sanitation" would raise the same basic issue as a broad reading of the provision's first sentence or of "other measures." According to one definition cited by the CDC, she noted, sanitation means the "applying of measures for preserving and promoting public health," which would give the agency carte blanche to impose any policy it thought would help reduce the spread of disease—the same interpretation that the Supreme Court rejected.

The history of Section 264(a)'s application, Mizelle argued, is another reason to doubt the CDC's current understanding of the law. Prior to 2020, she said, "perhaps the most notable use of this statute" was "a decision to ban small turtles due to a risk of salmonella."

Gostin and Hosie describe Mizelle's reading of "sanitation" as "strained and tendentious," and even critics of the mask mandate have questioned her distinction between two senses of the word. While Mizelle's analysis is "very thorough," George Mason law professor Ilya Somin said in a Volokh Conspiracy post last week, "I remain skeptical." He added:

The broader definition of "sanitation" strikes me as more intuitive and more in accordance with ordinary usage than the narrow one. Among other things, the narrow definition would lead to some counterintuitive results. For example, if the CDC enacted a regulation barring defecation on the floor of a plane or train, that would not qualify as "sanitation" under Judge Mizelle's approach because it does not clean anything, but merely "keep[s] something clean" (in this case, the floor). Yet, I think, most ordinary people—both today and in 1944—would agree that a ban on defecating on the floor qualifies as a "sanitation" policy. And, as Judge Mizelle notes, courts are generally required to follow the ordinary meaning of words in a federal statute, unless there is some strong evidence to the contrary.

Somin thought Mizelle's "best argument against the broad definition of 'sanitation'" was the concern that it would violate "the canon against redundancy," since "it does seem like the broad definition of 'sanitation' might make 'disinfection,' 'destruction,' and 'fumigation' redundant." But he suggested that problem could be avoided by defining "sanitation" broadly enough to encompass the mask mandate yet narrowly enough to avoid the overlap:

"Sanitation" could be interpreted to refer to ordinary cleaning measures—both those that "remove refuse and debris" and those that help prevent it from arising in the first place (as with the rule against defecation!). By contrast, terms like "fumigation" and "disinfection" might refer to the use of chemical agents and other more sophisticated techniques to forestall (in the case of "fumigation") or eliminate (in the case of "disinfection") infection. "Destruction" also has a distinct meaning, of course, as even a broad definition of the other terms doesn't necessarily allow complete destruction of possibly dangerous articles.

Such an approach probably would not satisfy Gostin and Hosie, who seem intent on reading Section 264(a) as giving the CDC a general disease control authority. "The C.D.C. claims no power that Congress [has] not explicitly given it," they write. In their view, it makes sense that "an agency tasked with slowing the interstate spread of a highly infectious virus would regulate interstate travel" (although the CDC's mask mandate also applied to intrastate travel such as bus, subway, and Uber rides). Gostin and Hosie, unlike the Supreme Court, also think that mission is clearly broad enough to encompass the CDC's eviction moratorium (which likewise covered intrastate conduct), because that policy "was intended to prevent mass evictions and keep people out of congregate settings where Covid spreads most easily."

In addition to concluding that the CDC had exceeded its authority under Section 264(a), Mizelle said the agency had violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by failing to properly justify its decision to dispense with the usual public notice and comment procedures for new regulations. She also deemed the mask mandate "arbitrary and capricious" because the CDC "failed to adequately explain its reasoning."

Somin does not think much of the latter claim. "While the transportation mask-mandate policy is badly flawed," he says, "it is not so completely ridiculous as to be 'arbitrary and capricious.'"

But Somin thinks "there is a very plausible case that the CDC violated the APA" by dodging notice and comment. "Even if the emergency nature of the situation justified bypassing notice-and-comment processes when the policy was first adopted in early 2021," he says, "there is much less excuse for continuing to circumvent normal procedure during the many months that have passed since then. Notice and comment requirements, it should be emphasized, are more than a mere technicality. They allow people affected by regulations to have some voice, and to influence the government to mitigate their burdens."

The 11th Circuit need not accept all of Mizelle's arguments against the mask mandate to agree with her that it was legally invalid. And even if it agrees with the CDC that the mandate fits within Section 264(a), that will not amount to endorsing the sweeping powers that the agency unsuccessfully asserted in the eviction moratorium case, which the Supreme Court already has rejected.

The Biden administration may be hoping for a different outcome. "If a case is on appeal when the dispute becomes moot for reasons unrelated to the litigation," the Times notes, "an appeals court can remand it to the district court with instructions not only to dismiss the case but to vacate the district court's ruling—meaning wipe it from the books." Citing University of Texas at Austin law professor Stephen Vladek, the Times suggests the administration "may be giving itself that option after the mandate's planned expiration on May 3." Instead of clarifying the CDC's statutory authority, that result would leave it vague, allowing the agency to continue auditioning for the role of disease dictator.

NEXT: She Says Her Son Died After Smoking Insecticide While He Was Supposed To Be on Suicide Watch. Now She's Suing.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. "remains necessary for public health."

    How something that was never necessary "remain" necessary?
    The CDC should be focused on avoiding a complete funding cut after the next election.

    1. It remains as necessary now as it has always been.

      I remain as weak before kryptonite as I have always been.

      I fly to Mars and Alpha Centauri as often now as I always have.

      This is all easy-peasy 1st grade playground stuff.

      1. Mars ain't the kind of place to raise a kid.

        1. But it does need women...

    2. If you think republicans would defund the CDC you are in for a shock. Pharma companies donate more money to republican congress critters than democratic ones. You'll get some blustery speeches about freedom from the mask police but they know what side their bread is buttered on, and it's not yours. The american voter will take it from both ends. The only thing elections are for is decide which way we want to face.

  2. because it "could prevent the federal government from effectively and nimbly responding to future pandemics."

    Damn right.
    Of course, they did not respond effectively this time, and the only thing nimble was the tap dancing from one incompetent edict to another even less effective edict.

    1. Oh...there was dancing.

      1. Around the truth.

      2. ^ZING! 100%

    2. Yeah that's a feature not a bug.

  3. I basically agree with this article. I would be interested to see some vehicle come up through the courts that caused APA reform. Congress should be required to handle more of these cases.

    1. I don’t see APA reform, because I don’t see the 11th Circuit reversing this judge. She only has to have been right on one of her grounds for rejection, and allowing the CDC to drive a bulldozer through the APA by vaguely referencing an “emergency” is likely one bridge too far. If they reverse her on APA grounds, they will likely be forced to pose some limits on the type of emergency override of the APA attempted by the CDC here. And if they don’t reverse on APA grounds, SCOTUS is unlikely to either. Rather, just deny Cert with no explanation.

  4. The appeals court is 6 Trump judges to 5 non-Trump judges. That is why.

    1. You should have won more elections, loser.

      1. Clinton got more votes then Trump. So what does it say that we live in a country where you get more votes and still lose. The Republicans in the US Senate got less votes then the Democrats. The only Republican president in the last 30 years to get the most votes was Bush in 2004. It is clear that the Rs would lose all the time if it were not for our weird and undemocratic system.

        1. You've said several times that you don't live in the US. Were you lying or did you move?

          Regardless, what does it say that you live in a country where the rules are clearly laid out, where politicians campaigned strategically based on those rules and where despite losing, you continue to argue counter-factual hypotheticals? What does it say that despite being apparently well-educated and articulate, you remain ignorant of the historical dangers of a Tyranny of the Majority?

          1. Were you lying

            This is one of shreek's older sockpuppet accounts, so I'm sure you can figure it out.

            1. Did Shreek move to Thailand so he could fuck little ladyboys?

        2. I hear that Venezuela and North Korea are much more democratic. If living in a republic is not compatible with your delusions, you should move.

        3. “So what does it say that we live in a country where you get more votes and still lose.”

          That you’re a fucking moron that doesn’t understand why a constitutional republic is superior to a democracy like the founders did.

          1. "...That you’re a fucking moron..."

            'Nuff said.

        4. It's like complaining that you got checkmated even though you captured more pieces than your opponent. It's not one election; it's 51 elections and everyone knew the rules going in. Clinton lost because her campaign was incompetent, not because the system was somehow unfair.

        5. That you live in a constitutional democracy. The current Canadian government is headed by a prime minister whose party got fewer votes than the opposition party.

        6. Molly, that is how the electoral system works. It's not arbitrary. It keeps places like NY, IL and CA from deciding what is best for the entire country based on what they think is right for themselves. Clearly, the Pandemic response is indicative of what a one size fits all policy looks like. Now apply that to the rest of the country. Do rural areas really need to be mandated to use all electric machinery by 2035?

          If we want a change, how about applying the electoral college numbers by land mass instead of population. How would the elections go then? Whose party would win election after election in that case?

          There is a balance that is created by the electoral vote. It forces the candidates to address the voters both in and out of their circles in order to win the whole thing. Sorry the minority of voters have other ideas than the Utopian vision of CA or Seattle. Someone still has to plow the fields and grow the food to feed those blue-haired activist influencers.

        7. It’s called a constitutional republic. If you don’t like it, GTFO. You’re a democrat. So it’s not like you’re really an American anyway.

    2. HA HA cry more.

    3. So fucking what? Is the legal reasoning wrong? That's all that matters.

    4. "For example, if the CDC enacted a regulation barring defecation on the floor of a plane or train, that would not qualify as "sanitation" under Judge Mizelle's approach because it does not clean anything, but merely "keep[s] something clean" (in this case, the floor). "

      Since there are already laws, passed by Congress or state legislatures, this is a bogus argument. In Fauci's whining, he stated that they were putting in place a committee in May to study the mask mandate. Since the Mandate was set to expire on April 18, the day of the ruling, his argument is specious as well.

      They have had 26 months to study the effectiveness of masking. And it is about time they acknowledge the immunity provided by the 10's of millions that have had Covid. Even Leana Wen at CNN was calling masking "Covid theater" based on the ineffectiveness of cloth masks on the Omicron variants.

      It is clear the appeal is only to try and keep as much power in the administrative bureaucracy as possible. The over reach during the pandemic has caused harm in certain areas far beyond the benefits. Great Barrington Declaration had a much better outline on how the pandemic should have been properly handled.

      Of course, now the emails are out where Fauci is demanding fealty from all who want NIH and CDC funds to cancel the highly qualified professionals that signed the GBD.

  5. Perhaps in discovery we will be able to see the evidence that an old tee shirt across your face will stop the flow of a virus riding on vapor, because it can’t.

    1. Yeah, shouldn't there be some requirement that they prove their claims of necessity? Or can they just claim any power as necessary. In the next pandemic it will be deemed necessary to public health that Anthony Fauci stick's his thumb in every American's anus.

    2. The issue really isn’t the virus riding on a vapor, because at least N95 masks might reduce that some. But the big reason that those masks don’t stop the spread of the virus is that it is primarily transmitted as an aerosolize when a carrier is asymptomatic or presymptomatic, and the single aerosolized virons are an order of magnitude smaller than the holes in an N95 mask. Symptomatic carriers, who do transmit the virus on a vapor, tend to stay self quarantined in bed, until they are no longer symptomatic.

      Think of it this way, when carriers are symptomatic, they are coughing, and the virons are transmitted on the water vapor expelled by the coughing. That is when they tend to be in bed, self quarantined. Good masks might be useful then. If they are walking around, they are likely asymptomatic (or presymptomatic), meaning that they aren’t coughing, running a temperature, etc. That is when they spread the virus as an aerosol. This, of course, wasn’t supposed to happen, but very clearly does - a lot.

      1. Aerosol is just another term for little bitty water droplet. Except when the particle get nebulized by a mask, they are all riding on water vapor....some of the water + virus particles are very small (aerosols) and some are larger (droplets)

        1. also when you're symptomatic (i had the rona so i know) you aren't coughing 24 hrs a day. most of the day you're breathing normally like everyone else. and during that normal breathing the virus is expelled into the air. there is no mask that will filter out those virus particles during normal breathing. the masks are simply not designed to do it. wearing a mask for covid is nothing but a farce. if you're wearing one then you're a total moron and there is no hope for you.

        2. No - it’s the virons free riding. But keep pretending.

          1. and you can keep wearing your mask while driving alone. go on believing your fantasy.

  6. Time to get rid of the CDC and create a real public health service staffed with real doctors not PHds and people who have never practiced medicine.

    1. Or get rid of the cdc and replace it with nothing

    2. PhDs are more "doctors" then medical doctors.

      1. You are retarded as fuck.

        1. Or perhaps your degree in medieval feminist basket weaving
          is worth more than a medical degree you dumb shit.

          1. Try for a degree in suicide.

      2. Comments like this make me really think you’re a parody. Nobody this stupid can log in to a website.

        1. Shreek is, however accidentally, technically correct here. The term "doctor" originally denoted a person who had sufficiently mastered his field to be able to teach as a subject matter expert.

  7. Because it was originally set to expire at the same time as the ruling, and the extension was only for 2 weeks? But admitting that would require intellectual honesty, something you seem to be fundamentally incapable of when discussing covid.

    1. Because it was originally set to expire at the same time as the ruling, and the extension was only for 2 weeks?

      Then I guess there's no problem, right? The judge vacated a rule that no longer existed, right?

  8. All sorts of restrictions and requirements—including nationwide lockdowns, a general vaccine mandate, and highly invasive limits on personal behavior—could be justified in the name of disease control.

    Go. Fuck. Yourself.

    People can and will take the measures necessary to protect their own health given proper information. Anything more than quarantine of the known sick is authoritarianism.

    1. You really think the right would allow quarantining the known sick? Hah, you don't know murica. That horse is out of the barn. Freedumb to get you sick is our constitutional right don't you know.

  9. This accidentally was posted in the wrong thread. I could not find a delete option.

    "For example, if the CDC enacted a regulation barring defecation on the floor of a plane or train, that would not qualify as "sanitation" under Judge Mizelle's approach because it does not clean anything, but merely "keep[s] something clean" (in this case, the floor). "

    Since there are already laws, passed by Congress or state legislatures, this is a bogus argument. In Fauci's whining, he stated that they were putting in place a committee in May to study the mask mandate. Since the Mandate was set to expire on April 18, the day of the ruling, his argument is specious as well.

    They have had 26 months to study the effectiveness of masking. And it is about time they acknowledge the immunity provided by the 10's of millions that have had Covid. Even Leana Wen at CNN was calling masking "Covid theater" based on the ineffectiveness of cloth masks on the Omicron variants.

    It is clear the appeal is only to try and keep as much power in the administrative bureaucracy as possible. The over reach during the pandemic has caused harm in certain areas far beyond the benefits. Great Barrington Declaration had a much better outline on how the pandemic should have been properly handled.

    Of course, now the emails are out where Fauci is demanding fealty from all who want NIH and CDC funds to cancel the highly qualified professionals that signed the GBD.

    1. Even Leana Wen at CNN was calling masking "Covid theater" based on the ineffectiveness of cloth masks on the Omicron variants.

      Cloth masks are ineffective, period... for any influenza virus, regardless of the variant.

      1. Yea, variant has zero to do with it.

  10. King County creates toxic waste dump. Hires people to help clean up and work in toxic waste dump. Gets sued by people injured and sickened by toxic waste dump.

    As a community health nurse working with dangerously mentally ill clients, Cari Dickson had plenty of scary experiences even before one man she was sent to check on pinned her to the floor of a tiny West Seattle apartment and tried to rape her in February 2021.

    Two Seattle police officers kicked down the door, tackled the man and carried Dickson to safety. Afterward, the officers were stunned to learn she had been sent to the man’s apartment by herself.

    Remember defunding the police? Remember sending in social workers to deal with mental patients instead of police? Remember that? Remember that? I DO!

    1. This is EXACTLY what I predicted would happen. Exactly.

      1. Why didn’t you try to warn Cari, you monster?!

        1. I did. I voted "no" on everything and against every candidate who holds political office in the city.

    2. What should have happened
      Cop 1 "do you hear a struggle?"
      Cop 2 "nope"

  11. Reasonable people might start with a desire to promote public health, and then consider various measures, including temporary restrictions on normal liberties.

    Progressive statists start with a desire to restrict normal liberties, and then consider various temporary excuses, including public health.

  12. It never was about public health; only about private wealth.

    The mask mandates were a farce from day 1.

  13. You guys are really not gonna believe this ....

    https://twitter.com/greg_price11/status/1518782147405963265?s=10

    Unreal

    1. Robert Reich enters the discussion..... and suddenly it isn't kosher to say "go make your own platform"

      https://mobile.twitter.com/RBReich/status/1518655243541618689

      1. Come on.... can you see it now? Or have you always been at war with Eurasia?

        These guys are literally Big Brother's minions.... and You reasonites want to carry their water?

        MSNBC going on about the potential for silencing one political party... shadow bans? You know, those things that you guys kept claiming didn't exist? The exact things that Musk said he wanted to stop?

        Huxley and Orwell were pikers. They wrote a weak tea version of reality. These people literally change their reality from hour to hour.

        1. It makes you wonder if they're actually that stupid or just think we are.

  14. I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me that defining sanitation as "sanitation ... except to the extent it subsumes other terms within the law for the express purpose of avoiding being overly broad" is prima facie arbitrary and capricious.

  15. Dr. Namita Nadar is the Best Dietitian and Nutritionist in Noida and Delhi NCR. She has established her Weight Loss Centre almost two decades ago with the mission of increasing awareness about having a good diet plan or diet chart in our daily life that could bring remarkable effects on our health and lifestyle. Best Dietitian and nutritionist in NoidaShe cures her patient with her holistic approach consisting of proper diet planning for weight loss and weight gain, body composition analysis along with the patient’s medical condition.

  16. The CDC's authority rests entirely on its reputation, expertise, and ability to persuade Congress or the President that a CDC recommendation should be enforced as law.

    Congress has not provided the required statutory authority to impose and enforce a mask mandate. The Legislative and Executive Branches quietly agreed to acquiesce to CDC's "authority" by using their own powers to enforce a mask mandate, and then quietly later agreed to stop doing so.

    The CDC has not lost any authority that it previously had. On the other hand, the reputation, expertise, and persuasive ability that it appeared to have at the outset of the pandemic has been seriously eroded thanks to blunders and errors (if not illegalities) of massive proportions.

    The only way the CDC can "recover" is to seriously root out the rot that produced their poor performance.

    1. Putting Fauci through a guillotine on live tv would be a good start.

  17. "her approach and rationale could undermine the federal government's authority" ..... "Omg! Heaven-forbid!", screams the Nazi(National Socialist)-fans!!!

    The CDC is UN-Constitutional.. Human Virus is not a "commerce".
    Trump to States, "You're going to call your own shots."

    So....... What about that U.S. Constitution? Seems the only thing anyone cares about anymore is the Over-Lords (i.e. Congressmen) 'fiat' statute law... Anyone care about a "People's" law over their government anymore??? (i.e. The U.S. Constitution?)

    Bow-Down and worship the almighty National Government Gods; for only the lords in D.C. can heal your virus. The National Gov-Gun worshiping in this nation is off the hooks.

    Once upon a time it was widely recognized that the Union Governments existence was mainly to provide National Defense against foreign invasion instead of playing Gods and Overlords of it's own citizens.

  18. This is another example of how America dies. In a normal functioning Democracy we would shrug and ask congress to write the statute that lets the CDC do its job. As it stands, airborne Ebola could hit us tomorrow and thanks to Mizelle and our broken system we would be powerless to do anything about it. Of course the statute allows the CDC to have mask mandates on interstate travel. Holy cow folks, are we really saying Michigan is powerless and must accept a bunch of disease-addled idiots to disembark from interstate planes because Mizelle doesn't like how people define sanitation? They will cry about disease-ridden immigrants and demand the border be shut down, but somehow force us to get on board planes with idiots without vax and masks.

    1. not true. public health is the purview of the states. so in your ebola scenario each state would do what they believe is necessary. we don't need a huge federal gov mommy to keep us safe.

  19. the tards are freaking out because they don't want their administrative state to collapse. they hate federalism. they love and want a huge fed gov.

    one central point of the ruling is that the mask mandate did not fit with the charter of sanitation. the cdc believes otherwise, but since the cdc believes it meets the meaning of the term sanitation then it falls on them to show that masks actually work. a mask can't "sanitize" if it doesn't stop the spread of the virus. but we know that the masks are totally worthless and do not and cannot stop the spread. this argument should be made.

  20. Despite (or because of) writing hundreds of anti -Trump screeds during the past five years, Sullum refuses to acknowledge that Trump would never have allowed CDC to impose an unscientific totalitarian mask mandate (especially upon victimized school children).

    1. You're sucking up to the guy who tried to end the US republic and install a dictatorship. End of democracy, end of libertarianism (small L) forever. Trumpers really lack any actual logic or critical thinking skills lmfao.

      1. Lmao... It's funny you think an end to popularity contests (Prom King & Queen) that grants unlimited Gov-Gun dictation is somehow an end to Liberty...

        Please do explain your "actual logic or critical thinking" skills....

        And while you're at it; please do tell how Biden's 30 executive orders on his first day and 52 in his first 100-days fit in the "popularity contest" context????

        "slavery will set you free", The leftards slogan since day 1.
        Project, Project, Project, Lie, Lie, Lie, Deny, Deny, Deny...

  21. If masks, work then why the vaccine?
    If vaccines work, then why boosters?
    If boosters work, then why masks.
    Oh, wait.
    Way too much logic here.
    Sorry to frighten all the mask fascists reading here.

  22. Because everyone knows that the masks don't work. What is "necessary for public health" is CDC power and exemption of their edicts from judicial review.

  23. For all the Trumpers doing victory laps, the Feds didn't bother because it was literally 2 weeks away from when their own program to end the mask mandate lmfao. This is about as false of a "victory dance" as I've ever seen from that crowd. The mandate should never have happened but this "victory" is a fucking joke.

    1. Hmmm. I guess it really burns your butt that anyone who supported Trump would be doing a victory dance about De-Regulating...??

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.