The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
SCOTUS Jabs OSHA Vaccine Cases on the Rocket-Docket
Challenges to the federal mandates will be heard on Friday, January 7.
Over the past ten days, there has been a flurry of activity with regard to the OSHA mandates. First, on December 13, the Eighth Circuit declined to stay a trial court injunction that blocked the mandate with respect to Medicaid and Medicare programs. Second, on December 15, the Fifth Circuit upheld an injunction against the Medicaid/Medicare mandate with regard to fourteen Plaintiff states. Third, on December 17, a divided panel of the Sixth Circuit upheld the OSHA mandate. (In a quirk of timing, Judge Sutton and Bush's dissents from denial of en banc actually came out before the panel decision.)
Almost immediately, the Plaintiffs in these cases filed emergency applications with the Supreme Court. In all cases, Circuit Justices Alito and Kavanaugh requested responses by December 30. This pace was leisurely by shadow docket standards. But the briefing schedule was a head fake.
This evening, the Court jabbed all of these matters on the rocket docket. In two orders, the Court scheduled oral arguments for Friday, January 7. This pace is blistering. Barely five days elapsed since the applications trickled up from the Sixth Circuit. And the Justices will hear the cases barely a week after briefing concludes.
This case is moving fast, but not quite as fast as the S.B. 8 cases. The United States filed its application on October 18. Cert before judgment was granted on October 22. And oral arguments were set for November 1. Only 14 days between the application and the arguments. A decision was rendered on December 10. Now, the Court gave itself a cushy three weeks between application and argument. But the decision will have to come sooner. Still, I think the Court is using the rocket docket as an alternative to the shadow docket. We saw this dynamic with S.B.8, as well as Ramirez v. Collier.
Now comes the million dollar question. Who gets to argue? The Court allocated one hour for argument time in NFIB v. Department of Labor and Ohio v. Department of Labor. The Court allocated another hour of argument time in Biden v. Missouri and Becerera v. Louisiana.
Who will argue? Steven Lehotsky represents NFIB and SG Ben Flowers represents Ohio. SG John Sauer represents Missouri and SG Elizabeth Murrill represents Louisiana. SG Prelogar will likely have back-to-back arguments. The Court may grant divided argument time to hear the perspectives of state and private parties. If not, there may be an important coin toss coming up.
The Supreme Court ruined a lot of holiday vacations. After the Sixth Circuit ruled, I was tempted to title my post, The Stranch That Stole Christmas. Now, the ire will lie with the Supreme Court.
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. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I think we can be 99.9% certain that the Court will strike down the mandate.
If I were one of the progressive justices, I might consider offering to sign on to the majority opinion if they include a paean to "bodily integrity", so I could throw it back at them in the coming abortion decisions.
Bodily integrity is all fine and good - but it can't justify murder. A majority of the justices may be poised to redefine viability and make post-viability abortions straight-out murder.
I think we can be 99.9% certain that the Court will strike down the mandate.
Really? I'm not 100% sure of anything, but the fact that they have had no interest in issuing stays of vaccine mandates seems to indicate that the Court thinks they are probably legal. Plus, it isn't lost on the Court that in a term where they are probably going to overturn Roe, handing the liberals a big win in an important case could help them politically.
What is the question presented??
The argument appears to be on the application for a stay itself, not on an underlying merits question.
The 6th hasn't ruled on the vaccine mandate itself, just on the stay, so it would definitely be premature for the court to make a final ruling.
I'm thinking by now the Biden administration may be rooting for all the stays to be reinstated. If you look at the factors that are making Biden so unpopular now: the mandates, supply chain, crime, inflation, the Omnicron surge reponse, then the mandate is making all of them worse. Businesses having to replace 5-10% of their workers exacerbating both the supply chain and inflation problems, hospitals having to fire workers, even those with natural immunity when hospitals are filling up is folly, and police and fire departments are losing thousands of first responders when their departments are under pressure.
What ever political benefit Biden will get from the mandates he's already gotten, and it didn't help much but the factors above can still cause more blowback, especially as people, many of them minorities start losing their jobs.
And the mandates are unlikely to end the pandemic quickly anyway.
Kazinski
December.23.2021 at 4:15 am
Flag Comment Mute User
"And the mandates are unlikely to end the pandemic quickly anyway."
I will note that case rates, death rates, hospitalization rates are likely to fall significantly starting late january/early february based on past history of the waves with covid and all the other respiratory virus pandemics.
Except this is all made up. Only a very very very tiny number of loons are choosing the unemployment rolls over vaccination.
The legal arguments in the petitions are based on statutory authority, not whether Congress could have constitutionally authorized the relevant agency actions.
And the petitioners all devote sections of their briefs to stating that this is the kind of case where the Supreme Court would likely grant certiorari.
Given Barrett and Kavanaugh’s prior actions refusing to issue injunctions in previous vaccine mandate cases, the issue is by no means 99.9% certain. In fact I think the best arguments here are ones the mandate exceeds the statutory authority or perhaps exceeds federal Commerce Clause authority. If it is within statutory and Commerce Clause authority, and I suspect at least a substantial portion will be found to be, then past Supreme Court shadow docket behavior refusing to interfere with state vaccine mandates suggests that it is is more likely than not it will be upheld.
And if the power to mandate a vaccination is not found in the Commerce Clause, perhaps Robers will rule it's a tax.
Firstly, if the Court intended to affirm the Sixth Circuit, I doubt it would expedite the case. State vaccine mandates, as you know, are arguably justified by the states' general police power, a power the federal government does not have.
But I believe this conservative Court will rule that OSHA has exceeded its statutory authority, so it need not even reach the constitutional question. I believe this Court is wary of the administrative state and will be quite loath to infer extremely broad powers from generalities in a staute.
But I guess we'll know soon enough.
Not just mandate a vaccine; mandate an experimental, unapproved, vaccine, currently under an "emergency use only" authorization. I think it would be very hard to argue that the entire working population of large corporations is facing an "emergency" at work after two years.
You haven't been keeping up, the Pfizer vaccine has received full FDA approval, so its no longer just on an EUA.
But a lot of the rationale for mandating the vaccine has gone away with omnicron, the vaccines do not prevent the vaccinated from spreading covid in the workplace, and if they can't do that then is the mandate really necessary.
However I'm not sure its really the Supreme Courts job to look closely at the medical evidence, the law should be their focus.
Kazinski
December.23.2021 at 4:25 am
Flag Comment Mute User
Kaz comment - "However I'm not sure its really the Supreme Courts job to look closely at the medical evidence, the law should be their focus."
Concur - however, As I previously noted, a common theme of Ginsburg's opinions and dissents was based on her policy preferences. See her opinions and dissents in Encino motors, obamacare, ledbetter/goodyear. Sotomayer is similar. see her dissent in Shutttee v bamn
Businesses with 100+ employees and health care companies are not engaged in interstate commerce?
Sorry, that doesn't pass the giggle test.
What a profound observation. Do businesses with only 99 employees not engage in interstate commerce?
I did not opine on whether OSHA's vaccine mandate could pass constitutional muster under the commerce clause, but that is only one of several issues with it.
The first question the Court will ask is whether Congress has authorized OSHA to promulgate this mandate. (Whether Congress even CAN constitutionally grant such authorization is a separate question). OSHA doesn't have carte blanche to impose any rules it wants upon a business just because a rule complies with the Commerce Clause. Firstly, the rule must fall within the authority Congress has given it, Notably, this is just the tenth ETS that OSHA has promulgated in its 50-year history. Six of those have been challenged in court; five were struck down. I believe the Supreme Court will hold that OSHA exceeded its statutory authority; therefore, it will not need to address the Commerce Clause issue or any other.
That being said, I will opine that this mandate would not pass muster under the Commerce Clause, as the Court held the Obamacare mandate was not justified under the Commerce Clause (but was under Congress' Tax Powers).
Could Congress pass a law mandating a vaccine for everyone? I would suggest that it could not, because it has no constitutional authority to do so. If it can't force you to buy health insurance under its commerce powers, then it surely can't force you to take a vaccine under them. (And a vaccine sure isn't a "tax"). Likewise, it would be ludicrous to suggest Congress could make that same mandate constitutional by applying it only to people who want to work (i.e., people who want to eat) because those people are engaging in interstate commerce. So, naturally, if Congress lacks the power to delegate to an executive agency a power it does not possess itself.
Of course, that's just my opinion, and the Court might disagree, but, I suspect, a majority of it would not.
The Obamacare mandate was not tied to employment.
To bar Congress from regulating the workplace takes us back into the world of Hammer v. Dagenhart, and the only Justice who would go there would be Thomas.
You can certainly have a company with 100+ people not engage in interstate commerce.
Such as a local chain of fast food outlets that source all of their ingredients and packaging from in-state farms and manufacturers.
You can certainly have a company with 100+ people not engage in interstate commerce.
You forget that SCOTUS ruled the USDA had the power to prevent a grower from growing wheat on his own ground and feeding it to his own animals.
In question was the USDA program the paid farmers not to plant wheat. The farmer did not participated in the program. But, the court ruled the purpose of the program was to reduce production, and if the farmer did not grow wheat, he would have to buy wheat. Wheat is fungible and crosses state lines so the commerce clause controls. Especially when no commerce happens.
not guilty
December.23.2021 at 12:31 am
Flag Comment Mute User
Businesses with 100+ employees and health care companies are not engaged in interstate commerce?
Sorry, that doesn't pass the giggle test."
It is not a commerce clause question. It is whether OSHA had the statutory authority to issue the mandate.
Nor is it a question as to whether the mandate is good policy or bad policy.
Those cases upholding the mandates were mandates under state law and where only addressing exemptions. In this case, the mandate is under federal law, so the question is whether the federal statutes support the mandate.
I will note that in Ginsburg's opinions and dissents, a common theme was whether she liked the policy. If she agreed with the policy, the law was valid. Obamacare, Encino motors, etc. Sotomayer very much follows in those footsteps.
On the whole, it is better to decide major cases incolving significant public controversies and unsettled areas of the law on the rocket docket rather than the shadow docket. This is especially the case where the matter is time-sensitive so that a decision to grant, deny, or stay an injunction effectively gives one of the parties a significant victory.
It would seem that the court (or at least five members ) can be sensitive to some public criticism after all. They certainly didn’t come to this realization on their own.
"I have no objections to a properly crafted vaccine mandate, if imposed by proper authority after compliance with required procedures. But here we are faced with . . . ."
SCOTUS will pay their dues to the Trump death cult. Rs have all be united in opposing all Covid prevention measures, no reason these Rs will be any different.
Trump says he’s fully vaxxed including a booster and chided people that booed him for saying it that they were playing into the hands of the Democrats, but don’t let any facts interfere in your politically preformed opinions.
Yes, Trump has reversed himself. Too late. That toothpaste can't get back in the tube - too many people's identity is caught up in being anti-vax.
When was Trump ever anti-vaccine? Unlike Kamala Harris, he didn't campaign on the idea that politicians might force approval of a bad vaccine for political purposes.
Got his booster in private.
Tweeted about vaccines and autism.
The development happened on his watch, but he remained silent. Which a lot of people read into. He did nothing much to stop the partisan anti-vax movement that invoked his name regularly from growing up all this year.
His kids have been really outspoken in the ant-vax nonsense.
I figure you'll insist in him saying 'don't get vaccinated' but by any other bar, he's culpable.
So your argument amounts to: he didn't speak loud enough about it before, so he was anti vax before. He was ALWAYS pro-vax. How could he NOT be? He couldn't take credit for getting the vaccines out there if he were anti-vax.
Your TDS is so terminal that it's utterly impossible for you to see anything Trump says or does with any objectivity whatsoever.
I'm will to give Trump a pass on anti-vaxx nonsense. Granted, he's been cowardly on speaking out, but that's not a major sin in a politician. The problem runs deeper:
Today's Right is history's first pro-disease party. They decided there is political gain in Covid, and that gain was exclusively through disinformation on the disease and fighting every anti-covid action or measure.
They told their followers the disease isn't serious, its effects exaggerated, the covid statics lies, the death numbers fabricated, all measures against it to be resisted at any cost, their justification untrue, the medical experts bond-grade villains, every quack treatment a secret hidden from the public and every vaccine government tyranny.
Except for that anti-vaxx propaganda at the end, every one of those pro-covid tactics started with Trump. He created the very idea that a political party might profit from supporting disease. By the time he found the courage to speak out in favor of vaccinations, his own supporters booed him. But he created & nurtured their obstinate blind stupidity. The greater fault rests with him.
"They told their followers the disease isn't serious, its effects exaggerated, the covid statics lies, the death numbers fabricated, all measures against it to be resisted at any cost, their justification untrue, the medical experts bond-grade villain"
Seems spot-on accurate, actually.
Sarcastr0
December.23.2021 at 4:51 am
Flag Comment Mute User
Yes, Trump has reversed himself. Too late. That toothpaste can't get back in the tube - too many people's identity is caught up in being anti-vax."
Revisionist history - Warp speed was started under the Trump administration - while at the same time, numerous prominent democrats said they would refuse to take a vaccine developed during the trump administration.
I know some folks in BARDA, and they dispelled my initial skepticism. Warp Speed was absolutely badass and helped and probably wouldn't have been done under a more technocratic administration.
But our limiting factor is not supply - it's demand. And Trump has done all he could absent formally coming out as anti-Corona vax to screw that up.
numerous prominent democrats said they would refuse to take a vaccine developed during the trump administration.
Weak.
One quote from Harris during a debate. That clearly no one listened to, given the demographics of who is anti-vaxx these days.
Sarcastr0
December.23.2021 at 8:40 am
Flag Comment Mute User
My prior comment - "numerous prominent democrats said they would refuse to take a vaccine developed during the trump administration."
Sacastro's response -
"Weak.
One quote from Harris during a debate. That clearly no one listened to, "
Revisionist history again. Harris along with multiple other said it mulitple times.
Cite these multiple others.
Pfizer wasn't even part of Operation Warp Speed.
Also, that's not what Harris said anyway. Trumpkins, as always, are lying. Here's what she said (about a hypothetical vaccine, not any of the ones actually released):
In other words, she was only questioning a vaccine that Trump forced approval of without the consent of actual medical experts.
So she questioned an impossible incident. Got it.
A more specific and obvious lie than usual. Though you can disprove that accusation with a verifiable cite to any prominent democrats saying they "...would refuse to take a vaccine developed during the trump administration. "
What you will find are statements similar to mine last August:
" I'll be an early and eager recipient of a Covid-19 vaccine credibly supported by CDC/WHO-approved evidence and FDA authorization license.
But take a vaccine based on anything Trump says? Or Putin? (per Russia's announcement a couple weeks ago). But then, I repeat myself."
I don’t remember Trump saying anything anti-vax, but I’m not paying a lot of attention to the guy.
It’s certainly arguable that if he had been as outspoken regarding vaccines as he has been regarding his election foolishness that it would have done some good.
Rs have all be united in opposing all Covid prevention measures, no reason these Rs will be any different.
Do you mean like the rent moratorium? That was a huge factor in reducing spread.
But seriously. No Republican is against prevention measures that comply with the constitution. Like closing down churches but leaving gyms open. Shuttering, mom and pop shoe store but allowing Target to sell shoes. Closing those small stores was vital to stop the spread.
But yesterday Biden advised us there is nothing that can be done to stop a virus. Something centuries of history had already told us.
The goal has not been eradication for like 8 months.
And yeah, plenty of Republicans are choosing to not get vaccinated, which has no constitutional ambit, but is becoming a Republican shibboleth.
As for the churches vs. gyms, that's generalizing based on anecdotes. And oftentimes anecdotes that leave out some aspect, like the church refuses to social distance and mask, etc.
Iowa - "Do you mean like the rent moratorium? That was a huge factor in reducing spread."
The rent moratorium had virtually zero effect on slowing the spread of covid.
I'd guess you're right, but we can't know.
None of the other mitigation protocols had any positive effect either.
Note that deaths rates by age have all pretty much ended up in the same spot in most every jurisdiction in the US.
I'd guess you're right, but we can't know.
As with every single mandate. "we can't know".
Why.
Absence of evidence. Stripping citizens of the freedoms, for no know reason.
No, not absence of evidence, because you're requiring proof of a counterfactual.
Yes Joe. That's my sarcasm, didn't think the tone and tenor of my comment required a tag
On the same note, Biden has extended the COVID pause on paying off student loans. It's an emergency dontchyaknow. Democrats find it almost impossible to advance their agenda using the legislative process. Rule by crisis is their only path.
Maybe you don't understand how courts, government, or much of anything works, but the Supreme Court is not deciding whether or not OSHA's vaccine mandate is a good idea, but whether or not it is authorized by law.
In our legal system, just because the 80-year-old Alzheimer's patient in the White House or the agency in charge of fire exits and ladder safety demands all American workers inject something into their bodies, does not necessarily give that decree the inviolate force of law.
You do realize the vaccines, which were sold as being an end to the pandemic, have limited efficacy and at most seem to only be certain to keep someone who is infected with Covid out of the hospital. That isn't making a compelling case for some sort of universal mandate....
Keeping people out of the hospital is a major benefit. That alone would justify the mandate. But it also reduces the chances of transmission.
The use of "ends justify the means" is what gets us all into a lot of trouble through slippery slopes.
Compare your response with abortions, guns rights, any of the politicized topics that elicit very split emotional responses.
Result A. "That alone would justify..."[insert action].
Through this one could justify pretty much anything. Your (or anyone else's) subjective choice of what would and wouldn't justify an action isn't science, nor is it settled. It's cognitive dissonance.
So many are stuck thinking inside a box, as if a vaccine mandate or even lockdowns are the only possible solutions. They're not. I'll leave it up to those who care to take the time to attempt thinking of solutions other than those which could help or have similar effects. Let's not underestimate the ingenuity of people who can come up with some very unique solutions.
That is a rather puzzling use of the word "only."
Aside from that, Mrs. Lincoln…
So we are back to the Trump Death Cult Trope?
That might have been superficially plausible at one time but at this stage of the Pandemic its ridiculous, Florida that gave up on lock downs early in the Pandemic has done better than New York, but only marginally. Wisconsin which had their Supreme Court and legislature hamstring the Governor and has had bars open almost throughout the pandemic is pretty much indistinguishable from Minnesota where the Governor has been very active with lockdowns. And next door Michigan where the governor has also been very active has about 50% more deaths per capita than both.
Go ahead look at the 50 states that have had very different responses to the virus and tell me if you can see any evidence that more restrictive measures work. For instance the West coast has probably had the least number of deaths per capita with liberal states CA, OR, and WA being pretty restrictive, but the NE, where other liberal states like NJ, NY, MA, CT, PA have been just as restrictive have been hit very hard.
Yeah. I look forward to years of analysis of what public policy interventions actually worked. I'd guess there is some self-censoring currently as publishing things against the orthodoxy may be difficult.
I'd also guess other than mass vaccination that lockdowns were the most clearly successful action at preventing hospitalization and death. But lockdowns mostly just delay disease spread, and are so draconian/unpopular that they can only be justified if local hospital capacity is heavily treading towards no beds available.
lockdowns were the most clearly successful action at preventing hospitalization and death. But lockdowns mostly just delay disease spread,
You contradict yourself. It was always 'flatten the curve'. That meant overtime, the number of deaths under the line would be the same.
Strange, that even now, protecting the vulnerable is ignored. The govt has spent more resources trying to vaccinated 5 to ten year olds, a population that is under more risk from seasonal flue, than covid. Focusing resources on the the elderly, and those with other co-morditities. Something that was clear from the experience in Italy.
Yeah, perhaps I phrased it wrong. But lockdowns are effective tools as far as they go. But they mostly haven't been needed or called for.
As to vaccinating the elderly, all the willing ones are vaccinated long since surely. What more would you have the government do in that regard? Italy's outcomes were not much better than the US. US had much higher cases per million, but only slightly higher deaths.
People 65+ are like 90+% vaccinated.
I did an analysis of death rates by age (for the over 65 age group ) for approx 15 states as of the middle of Nov.
What was remarkable was the range deaths per 100k for that age group (65+), they all fell within 1150-1300 deaths per 100k with no correlation for the level of mitigation protocols . (states included CA, CO, FL, MN, WI MI, MA, CT, TX) I did not test WA, NH, VT, ME. Those 4 states appeared to be much lower due to factors other than mitigation. NY had slightly higher at approx 1400, probably due to the early burn off of dry tinder.
Kaz's point is valid in that every region is going to pretty much end up at the same place.
Joe,
How do the unvaccinated figure in your analysis? Do areas with larger percentages of unvaccinated have higher infection and/or death rates? Do some states have higher death rates in some areas, and do those areas have higher rates of unvaccinated?
I ask because there have been reports that the highest rates of opposition are in the Black and Hispanic communities. Due to an innate distrust of statistics, I do not vouch for the accuracy of these reports. Are there higher infection and death rates in these communities?
Goju
December.23.2021 at 9:32 pm
Flag Comment Mute User
Joe,
"How do the unvaccinated figure in your analysis? Do areas with larger percentages of unvaccinated have higher infection and/or death rates? Do some states have higher death rates in some areas, and do those areas have higher rates of unvaccinated?"
When I ran the numbers for a approx 15 through middle of november, the death rate for age 65+ for all the states all fell within the narrow range of 1150-1300 deaths per 100K
I only did around 4-5 counties and they also fell within that narrow range. Though, I would be dubious of relying on a lot of the county analysis by county since many rural counties are sparsely populated, resulting in small clusters greatly skewing the results. This showed up in the Highly touted Kansas masking mandate v non masking mandate counties. The raw data in the kansas masking study showed a lot of clusters which could lead to erroneous conclusions.
that was 15 states, Wis, CA, CA MN, and CA were all higher than FL, for the death rate for the 65+ age group, though only slightly higher and all within the narrow range.
Point being is that every location is winding up very near the same place, irrespective of the level of compliance with mitigation protocols and without regard to being republican or democrat .
One could sight corroborating stats, but they're ever-changing, either being updated and revised up or downward.
Meanwhile, I believe you're right as to the thrust of your argument based on local experience and also on the aggregate of true statistical numbers and immune system science. Quarantines and lockdowns of the healthy are absurdly ineffectual and logical.
Molly - get help. You seriously need it.
Fuck off. Don't weaponize mental health for your partisan Internet spats.
"divided panel of the Sixth Circuit upheld the OSHA mandate."
No they didn't. The linked decision vacates the stay issued by the 5th circuit. It is not a final decision on the merits.
Haven't read all of the comments above, so hope this isn't a repeat of something already said, but your recap of the case reads like a sports writer's build-up piece before the game.
Well done!