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.
The Biden administration's main priority seems to be leaving the agency's authority vague enough to allow future interventions.
Some implications of the government's decision not to seek a stay of the district court ruling. Plus, the low quality of the trial judge's opinion doesn't necessarily mean there are no good arguments against the mandate's legality.
That's a fundamentally anti-democratic attitude.
The Stanford professor and Great Barrington Declaration coauthor stands up to COVID-19 autocrats and disastrous lockdowns by following the science.
The anti-lockdown Stanford public health professor on being attacked by Fauci, the loss of trust in medical experts, and how to save science going forward.
Clarifying the agency's authority could impede future power grabs.
Plus: Conspiracy theories are undergoing a vibe shift, Florida won't stop attacking private companies, and more...
The decision against the rule hinged on whether the agency had the power it asserted.
Though travel isn't completely back to normal, this change is an overdue acknowledgment that we can't always view COVID-19 transmission as catastrophic.
The decision holds that the CDC exceeded its legal authority. But it may be vulnerable to reversal on appeal.
"Our system does not permit agencies to act unlawfully even in pursuit of desirable ends," writes Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle.
If you resent government incompetence and malice, maybe your devalued dollars will buy less of it.
Plus: Elon Musk offers to buy all of Twitter, China's "zero COVID" policy is reaching its limits, and more...
The CDC thinks a monthlong review of COVID policies will be sufficient to redress their errors.
"I know the CDC is working to develop a scientific framework," says Ashish K. Jha
The controversial public health order will finally meet its end after U.S. immigration officials used it to carry out 1.7 million expulsions.
The policy caused immense suffering, in exchange for meager public health benefits, if any at all. Its history undercuts the case for granting broad powers and judicial deference to the CDC.
Ridership is dismally depressed and a federal mask mandate for straphangers remains stubbornly in place.
The lawsuit raises some of the same issues as earlier successful challenges against the CDC's eviction moratorium. But, in this case, the federal government has a stronger legal rationale for its policies.
The eviction moratorium and Title 42 "public health" expulsion cases have many parallels that may have been ignored because of their differing ideological valence. Both strengthen the case for nondeferential judicial review of the exercise of emergency powers.
There are no public health gains from booting kids out of the country.
The same agency that brought us security theater continues to enforce a rule that never made sense.
The court ruled the CDC can continue to use its public health power to expel migrants, but not to countries where they are likely to face persecution or torture.
The agency ignores downward trends in both kinds of nicotine use and obscures the huge difference in the hazards they pose.
The surgeon general's definition of misinformation includes statements that are arguably or verifiably true.
"If I do my job right, you should barely know I'm here."
The COVID-conscious advice from the federal government's primary disaster response agency is silly. It's also outdated.
The agency emphasizes that children face a very low risk from COVID-19, which it has known all along.
CDC Director Rochelle Walensky stressed that people could continue to wear masks if they wanted to.
From the CDC to the FDA, there are too many missteps to list.
Walensky acknowledged "limitations" of available studies but told a congressional committee "our guidance currently is that masking should happen in all schools."
Seven out of 10 Americans say "it's time we accept COVID is here to stay and we just need to get on with our lives." Politicians are taking notice.
The president is waiting until children, who have always faced an infinitesimal risk from COVID-19, are "more protected."
The proposed guidelines emphasize the need for individualized treatment and collaboration with patients.
Rochelle Walensky says "now is not the moment" to stop forcing masks on children. Democratic politicians increasingly disagree.
The agency further undermines its credibility by desperately trying to back up conclusions it has already reached.
That recommendation, which never had a firm basis, is even harder to justify in the current context.
Supporters of that policy assume it works, then desperately search for evidence to validate that conviction.
Unvaccinated Americans over age 50 are 44 times more likely to be hospitalized than triple-vaccinated folks.
Why did it take so long?
The question for the Supreme Court was not whether the policy was wise but whether it was legal.
Defenders of the CDC eviction moratorium predicted a "tsunami" of evictions would happen if the policy were rescinded. That hasn't happened.
Plus: Noncitizens can vote in New York City, making baseball fair, and more...
The CDC director's explanation of her agency's confusing advice about home COVID-19 testing is hard to understand.
Plus, the CDC's amateur psychoanalyzing.
A new study of 915 childhood COVID-19 hospitalizations found that most involved underlying conditions.
Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.
This modal will close in 10