JavaScript is disabled in your web browser or browser is too old to support JavaScript. Today almost all web pages contain JavaScript, a scripting programming language that runs on visitor's web browser. It makes web pages functional for specific purposes and if disabled for some reason, the content or the functionality of the web page can be limited or unavailable.

Thursday, May 8, 2025

Supreme Court halts COVID-19 vaccine rule for US businesses

by

1210 days ago
20220114
FILE - This artist sketch depicts lawyer Scott Keller standing to argue on behalf of more than two dozen business groups seeking an immediate order from the Supreme Court to halt a Biden administration order to impose a vaccine-or-testing requirement on the nation's large employers during the COVID-19 pandemic, at the Supreme Court in Washington, Jan. 7, 2022. The Supreme Court has stopped the Biden administration from enforcing a requirement that employees at large businesses be vaccinated against COVID-19 or undergo weekly testing and wear a mask on the job. The court's order Thursday during a spike in coronavirus cases deals a blow to the administration's efforts to boost the vaccination rate among Americans. (Dana Verkouteren via AP, File)

FILE - This artist sketch depicts lawyer Scott Keller standing to argue on behalf of more than two dozen business groups seeking an immediate order from the Supreme Court to halt a Biden administration order to impose a vaccine-or-testing requirement on the nation's large employers during the COVID-19 pandemic, at the Supreme Court in Washington, Jan. 7, 2022. The Supreme Court has stopped the Biden administration from enforcing a requirement that employees at large businesses be vaccinated against COVID-19 or undergo weekly testing and wear a mask on the job. The court's order Thursday during a spike in coronavirus cases deals a blow to the administration's efforts to boost the vaccination rate among Americans. (Dana Verkouteren via AP, File)

By MARK SHER­MAN and JES­SI­CA GRESKO-As­so­ci­at­ed Press

 

WASH­ING­TON (AP) — The Supreme Court has stopped a ma­jor push by the Biden ad­min­is­tra­tion to boost the na­tion’s COVID-19 vac­ci­na­tion rate, a re­quire­ment that em­ploy­ees at large busi­ness­es get a vac­cine or test reg­u­lar­ly and wear a mask on the job.

At the same time, the court is al­low­ing the ad­min­is­tra­tion to pro­ceed with a vac­cine man­date for most health care work­ers in the U.S. The court’s or­ders Thurs­day came dur­ing a spike in coro­n­avirus cas­es caused by the omi­cron vari­ant.

The court’s con­ser­v­a­tive ma­jor­i­ty con­clud­ed the ad­min­is­tra­tion over­stepped its au­thor­i­ty by seek­ing to im­pose the Oc­cu­pa­tion­al Safe­ty and Health Ad­min­is­tra­tion’s vac­cine-or-test rule on U.S. busi­ness­es with at least 100 em­ploy­ees. More than 80 mil­lion peo­ple would have been af­fect­ed and OS­HA had es­ti­mat­ed that the rule would save 6,500 lives and pre­vent 250,000 hos­pi­tal­iza­tions over six months.

“OS­HA has nev­er be­fore im­posed such a man­date. Nor has Con­gress. In­deed, al­though Con­gress has en­act­ed sig­nif­i­cant leg­is­la­tion ad­dress­ing the COVID–19 pan­dem­ic, it has de­clined to en­act any mea­sure sim­i­lar to what OS­HA has pro­mul­gat­ed here,” the con­ser­v­a­tives wrote in an un­signed opin­ion.

In dis­sent, the court’s three lib­er­als ar­gued that it was the court that was over­reach­ing by sub­sti­tut­ing its judg­ment for that of health ex­perts. “Act­ing out­side of its com­pe­tence and with­out le­gal ba­sis, the Court dis­places the judg­ments of the Gov­ern­ment of­fi­cials giv­en the re­spon­si­bil­i­ty to re­spond to work­place health emer­gen­cies,” Jus­tices Stephen Brey­er, Ele­na Ka­gan and So­nia So­tomay­or wrote in a joint dis­sent.

Pres­i­dent Joe Biden said he was “dis­ap­point­ed that the Supreme Court has cho­sen to block com­mon-sense life-sav­ing re­quire­ments for em­ploy­ees at large busi­ness­es that were ground­ed square­ly in both sci­ence and the law.”

Biden called on busi­ness­es to in­sti­tute their own vac­ci­na­tion re­quire­ments, not­ing that a third of For­tune 100 com­pa­nies al­ready have done so.

When craft­ing the OS­HA rule, White House of­fi­cials al­ways an­tic­i­pat­ed le­gal chal­lenges — and pri­vate­ly some har­bored doubts that it could with­stand them. The ad­min­is­tra­tion nonethe­less still views the rule as a suc­cess at al­ready dri­ving mil­lions of peo­ple to get vac­ci­nat­ed and en­cour­ag­ing pri­vate busi­ness­es to im­ple­ment their own re­quire­ments that are un­af­fect­ed by the le­gal chal­lenge.

The OS­HA reg­u­la­tion had ini­tial­ly been blocked by a fed­er­al ap­peals court in New Or­leans, then al­lowed to take ef­fect by a fed­er­al ap­pel­late pan­el in Cincin­nati.

Both rules had been chal­lenged by Re­pub­li­can-led states. In ad­di­tion, busi­ness groups at­tacked the OS­HA emer­gency reg­u­la­tion as too ex­pen­sive and like­ly to cause work­ers to leave their jobs at a time when find­ing new em­ploy­ees al­ready is dif­fi­cult.

The Na­tion­al Re­tail Fed­er­a­tion, the na­tion’s largest re­tail trade group, called the Supreme Court’s de­ci­sion “a sig­nif­i­cant vic­to­ry for em­ploy­ers.”

The vac­cine man­date that the court will al­low to be en­forced na­tion­wide scraped by on a 5-4 vote, with Chief Jus­tice John Roberts and Jus­tice Brett Ka­vanaugh join­ing the lib­er­als to form a ma­jor­i­ty. The man­date cov­ers vir­tu­al­ly all health care work­ers in the coun­try, ap­ply­ing to providers that re­ceive fed­er­al Medicare or Med­ic­aid fund­ing. It af­fects 10.4 mil­lion work­ers at 76,000 health care fa­cil­i­ties as well as home health care providers. The rule has med­ical and re­li­gious ex­emp­tions.

Biden said that de­ci­sion by the court “will save lives.”

In an un­signed opin­ion, the court wrote: “The chal­lenges posed by a glob­al pan­dem­ic do not al­low a fed­er­al agency to ex­er­cise pow­er that Con­gress has not con­ferred up­on it. At the same time, such un­prece­dent­ed cir­cum­stances pro­vide no grounds for lim­it­ing the ex­er­cise of au­thor­i­ties the agency has long been rec­og­nized to have.” It said the “lat­ter prin­ci­ple gov­erns” in the health­care are­na.

Jus­tice Clarence Thomas wrote in dis­sent that the case was about whether the ad­min­is­tra­tion has the au­thor­i­ty “to force health­care work­ers, by co­erc­ing their em­ploy­ers, to un­der­go a med­ical pro­ce­dure they do not want and can­not un­do.” He said the ad­min­is­tra­tion hadn’t shown con­vinc­ing­ly that Con­gress gave it that au­thor­i­ty.

Jus­tices Samuel Al­i­to, Neil Gor­such and Amy Coney Bar­rett signed on­to Thomas’ opin­ion. Al­i­to wrote a sep­a­rate dis­sent that the oth­er three con­ser­v­a­tives al­so joined.

De­ci­sions by fed­er­al ap­peals courts in New Or­leans and St. Louis had blocked the man­date in about half the states. The ad­min­is­tra­tion al­ready was tak­ing steps to en­force it else­where.

More than 208 mil­lion Amer­i­cans, 62.7% of the pop­u­la­tion, are ful­ly vac­ci­nat­ed, and more than a third of those have re­ceived boost­er shots, ac­cord­ing to the fed­er­al Cen­ters for Dis­ease Con­trol and Pre­ven­tion. All nine jus­tices have got­ten boost­er shots.

The cour­t­house re­mains closed to the pub­lic, and lawyers and re­porters are asked for neg­a­tive test re­sults be­fore be­ing al­lowed in­side the court­room for ar­gu­ments, though vac­ci­na­tions are not re­quired.

The jus­tices heard ar­gu­ments on the chal­lenges last week. Their ques­tions then hint­ed at the split ver­dict that they is­sued Thurs­day.

A sep­a­rate vac­cine man­date for fed­er­al con­trac­tors, on hold af­ter low­er courts blocked it, has not been con­sid­ered by the Supreme Court.

As­so­ci­at­ed Press writer Zeke Miller con­tributed to this re­port.

COVID-19US Supreme Court


Related articles

Sponsored

Weather

PORT OF SPAIN WEATHER

Sponsored