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 weighs vaccine rules affecting more than 80M

by

1217 days ago
20220107
FILE - The Supreme Court is seen at dusk in Washington, Oct. 22, 2021. The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments Jan. 7, 2022, on challenges to whether the Biden administration can order millions of workers at private companies and health care employees be vaccinated for COVID-19. Until the court rules, millions of workers face a patchwork of requirements depending on where they live. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File)

FILE - The Supreme Court is seen at dusk in Washington, Oct. 22, 2021. The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments Jan. 7, 2022, on challenges to whether the Biden administration can order millions of workers at private companies and health care employees be vaccinated for COVID-19. Until the court rules, millions of workers face a patchwork of requirements depending on where they live. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File)

By MARK SHER­MAN and JES­SI­CA GRESKO | AS­SO­CI­AT­ED PRESS

 

WASH­ING­TON (AP) — The Supreme Court is tak­ing up two ma­jor Biden ad­min­is­tra­tion ef­forts to bump up the na­tion’s vac­ci­na­tion rate against COVID-19 at a time of spik­ing coro­n­avirus cas­es be­cause of the omi­cron vari­ant.

The jus­tices on the con­ser­v­a­tive-ori­ent­ed court are hear­ing ar­gu­ments Fri­day about whether to al­low the ad­min­is­tra­tion to en­force a vac­cine-or-test­ing re­quire­ment that ap­plies to large em­ploy­ers and a sep­a­rate vac­cine man­date for most health care work­ers. The ar­gu­ments were ex­pect­ed to last at least two hours.

Le­gal chal­lenges to the poli­cies from Re­pub­li­can-led states and busi­ness groups are in their ear­ly stages, but the out­come at the high court prob­a­bly will de­ter­mine the fate of vac­cine re­quire­ments af­fect­ing more than 80 mil­lion peo­ple.

“I think ef­fec­tive­ly what is at stake is whether these man­dates are go­ing to go in­to ef­fect at all,” said Sean Marot­ta, a Wash­ing­ton lawyer whose clients in­clude the Amer­i­can Hos­pi­tal As­so­ci­a­tion. The trade group is not in­volved in the Supreme Court cas­es.

The chal­lengers ar­gue that the vac­cine rules ex­ceed the ad­min­is­tra­tion’s au­thor­i­ty, but So­lic­i­tor Gen­er­al Eliz­a­beth Prel­og­ar, the ad­min­is­tra­tion’s top Supreme Court lawyer, wrote that both are need­ed to avoid un­nec­es­sary hos­pi­tal­iza­tions and deaths.

Keep­ing the vac­cine man­date for health care work­ers on hold “will like­ly re­sult in hun­dreds or thou­sands of deaths and se­ri­ous ill­ness­es from COVID-19 that could oth­er­wise be pre­vent­ed,” Prel­og­ar wrote.

Near­ly 207 mil­lion Amer­i­cans, 62.3% of the pop­u­la­tion, are ful­ly vac­ci­nat­ed, and more than a third of the coun­try has re­ceived a boost­er shot, in­clud­ing the nine jus­tices.

The court said Fri­day that Jus­tice So­nia So­tomay­or would not be on the bench with her col­leagues, opt­ing in­stead to take part re­mote­ly from her of­fice at the court. So­tomay­or, who has had di­a­betes since child­hood, has been the on­ly jus­tice who wore a mask to pre­vi­ous ar­gu­ment ses­sions in the court­room.

Andy Slavitt, a for­mer ad­vis­er to the Biden ad­min­is­tra­tion on COVID-19, said the vac­cine re­quire­ments are ex­treme­ly ef­fec­tive for 15% to 20% of Amer­i­cans “who don’t like to get a shot, but they will and don’t have any stren­u­ous ob­jec­tion.”

The high court will be weigh­ing in on ad­min­is­tra­tion vac­cine poli­cies for the first time, al­though the jus­tices have turned away pleas to block state-lev­el man­dates.

But a con­ser­v­a­tive ma­jor­i­ty con­cerned about fed­er­al over­reach did bring an end to the fed­er­al mora­to­ri­um on evic­tions put in place be­cause of the pan­dem­ic.

Three con­ser­v­a­tives, Chief Jus­tice John Roberts and Jus­tices Brett Ka­vanaugh and Amy Coney Bar­rett, prob­a­bly hold the key to the out­come, Marot­ta said.

They broke with the oth­er jus­tices on the right over state man­dates for health-care work­ers, but joined them to al­low evic­tions to re­sume.

Both vac­cine rules will ex­ac­er­bate la­bor short­ages and be cost­ly to busi­ness­es, op­po­nents said. “Peo­ple are go­ing to quit. It will make a bad sit­u­a­tion worse and they’re not go­ing to come back,” said Karen Harned, ex­ec­u­tive di­rec­tor of the Na­tion­al Fed­er­a­tion of In­de­pen­dent Busi­ness’ Small Busi­ness Le­gal Cen­ter.

Her group is among those chal­leng­ing an emer­gency rule adopt­ed by the Oc­cu­pa­tion­al Safe­ty and Health Ad­min­is­tra­tion un­der which work­ers at busi­ness­es with 100 or more em­ploy­ees must be vac­ci­nat­ed or get test­ed week­ly and wear masks while work­ing. The rule has ex­cep­tions for those who work alone or most­ly out­doors.

The OS­HA rule is sup­posed to take ef­fect Mon­day, al­though the agency has said it would not im­pose fines on busi­ness­es that don’t com­ply be­fore late Feb­ru­ary.

The vac­cine man­date, for its part, ap­plies to vir­tu­al­ly all health care staff in the coun­try. It cov­ers health care providers that re­ceive fed­er­al Medicare or Med­ic­aid fund­ing, po­ten­tial­ly af­fect­ing 76,000 health care fa­cil­i­ties as well as home health care providers. The rule has med­ical and re­li­gious ex­emp­tions.

De­ci­sions by fed­er­al ap­peals courts in New Or­leans and St. Louis have blocked the man­date in about half the states. The ad­min­is­tra­tion has said it is tak­ing steps to en­force it in the rest.

Both cas­es are com­ing to the court on an emer­gency ba­sis and the court took the un­usu­al step of sched­ul­ing ar­gu­ments rather than just rul­ing on briefs sub­mit­ted by the par­ties. Un­like in oth­er cas­es the court hears, a de­ci­sion from the jus­tices could come in weeks if not days.

Be­cause of the pan­dem­ic the jus­tices will hear the cas­es in a court­room closed to the pub­lic. On­ly the jus­tices, lawyers in­volved in the cas­es, court staff and jour­nal­ists will be present. The pub­lic can lis­ten live, how­ev­er, a change made ear­li­er in the pan­dem­ic when the jus­tices for near­ly 19 months heard cas­es via tele­phone.

CourtCOVID-19HealthUnited States


Related articles

Sponsored

Weather

PORT OF SPAIN WEATHER

Sponsored