How the Media Got the Vinyl Chloride Risk All Wrong
The Ohio train accident was frightening enough. Spreading inaccurate information won’t help the citizens of East Palestine.
The Ohio train accident was frightening enough. Spreading inaccurate information won’t help the citizens of East Palestine.
I am one of the relatively few people who think the Court got both cases right.
That process takes a long time, and the result would face the same legal objection cited by the Supreme Court.
SCOTUS rejected attempt to bypass Congress with an emergency regulation.
Insofar as the Court was concerned about pretext, it may be more difficult for the EPA to reduce greenhouse gases using regulatory authority to control emissions.
The question for the Supreme Court was not whether the policy was wise but whether it was legal.
The crux of the argument is the distinction "between occupational risk and risk more generally."
Assorted observations on yesterday's opinions, what they mean, and what comes next.
Separately, the court upheld Biden's mandate that health care workers must be vaccinated to work at medical facilities receiving Medicare and Medicaid funding.
I think both rulings are correct, though not always for the reasons given by the Court.
By divided votes, the justices entered stayed t the OSHA Emergency Temporary Standard and stayed the lower court injunctions against the mandate that Medicare and Medicaid service providers require their employees to get vaccinated.
Does it matter that the year Congress enacted the Occupational Safety and Health Act was as proximate to the Spanish Flu as to today?
The justice's reference to a national "police power" raised some eyebrows.
The caliber of questioning by the justices was not up to the usual standards, but the justices seemed to understand the two rules at issue present different questions.
In my view, the Court should uphold the CMS health care worker vaccination requirement, but rule against the overreaching OSHA rule imposed on employers with 100 or more workers.
Most of the justices appear to be skeptical of the argument that the agency has the power it is asserting.
The Supreme Court will ultimately decide how convincing that disguise is.
The argument hinges largely on what makes an emergency standard "necessary."
The question of whether to stay the BIden Administration rule requiring large employers to mandate vaccinations or testing is now before the Supreme Court.
A majority of judges on the court did not vote in favor of the petitions for initial hearing en banc, so the challenge will be heard by a three-judge panel
The government argues that the 5th Circuit erred in concluding that the rule "grossly exceeds OSHA's statutory authority."
A petition has been filed asking the full court to hear the legal challenges to the OSHA COVID-19 vaccinate-or-test mandate.
The agency is staying in its lane—for now.
As a result of the multi-district litigation lottery process, all of the challenges will be heard in a single circuit.
While the court identified serious problems with the new OSHA regulation requiring larger employers to vaccinate or test their workers, its opinion was rushed and sloppy.
A unanimous three-judge panel concludes that the decree "grossly exceeds OSHA's statutory authority."
Is the COVID-19 virus an "agent"?
The U.S. government doesn't reflect on its spending history, and that shows.
The appeals court said the rule, which was published on Friday, raises "grave statutory and constitutional issues."
The stay may only last a very short time. But it does suggest the judges think the plaintiffs have a serious case to make against the mandate.
Several Republicans are seeking to overturn the new OSHA rule. Despite the razor-thin margins in both Houses, a repeal resolution will not get enacted.
The rule just issued by OSHA has fewer legal flaws than the initial plan floated by the White House. But it's still problematic, and could set a dangerous precedent if upheld by courts.
Federal courts will have to decide whether the rule is "necessary" to protect workers from a "grave danger."
The federal standard contains some carve outs that were not part of the White House announcement, likely to help insulate rule from legal challenge. (Updated with a response to Ilya Somin.)
The failure of legal challenges obscures an ongoing scientific debate.
A broad standard with no exceptions better serves his goals, but it will be harder to defend in court.
Plus, how his tax hikes won't actually help anyone, either.
OSHA has rarely used this option, which avoids the usual rule-making process, and most challenges to such edicts have been successful.
Biden's sudden embrace of a federal vaccine requirement seems inconsistent with his acknowledgment that he cannot mandate every COVID-19 precaution he'd like people to follow.