The Supreme Court can't get its story straight on vaccines

[babylonsister]

https://www.vox.com/22883639/supreme-court-vaccines-osha-cms-biden-mandate-nfib-labor-missouri

The Supreme Court can’t get its story straight on vaccines
The Court is barely even pretending to be engaged in legal reasoning.
By Ian Millhiser Jan 15, 2022, 7:00am EST


On Thursday, the Supreme Court handed down a pair of unsigned opinions that appear to be at war with each other.

The first, National Federation of Independent Business v. Department of Labor, blocks a Biden administration rule requiring most workers to either get vaccinated against Covid-19 or to routinely be tested for the disease. The second, Biden v. Missouri, backs a more modest policy requiring most health care workers to get the vaccine.

There are some things that differentiate the two cases. Beyond the fact that the first rule is broader than the second, the broader rule also relies on a rarely used provision of federal law that is restricted to emergencies, while the latter rule relies on a more general statute.

But the Court gives little attention to substantive differences between the laws authorizing both rules. Instead, it applies an entirely judicially created doctrine and other standards in inconsistent ways. The result is two opinions that are difficult to reconcile with each other.

snip//

The elevation of these doctrines is dangerous. When courts hand down such vague and open-ended rules, they effectively transfer power to themselves. As the NFIB and Missouri cases show, doctrines like major questions are hard to apply in a principled way, and very easy to apply selectively. And they can justify striking down nearly any significant rule that a majority of the justices dislike.

The justices, in other words, have set themselves up as the final censors of any regulatory action. The Biden administration may still propose new rules, but those rules are likely to stand only if five justices agree with them.

[brewens]

1. The only reason they let the medical "mandate" stand is they knew they would be responsible

for a complete meltdown with massive staff sickness in the hospitals. If omicron is bad enough, it may happen anyway. Hopefully businesses are smart enough to do what's needed. I would think food producers and distributors would want to avoid shutdowns. We could see worse shortages in the stores than we had early on if they aren't careful.

[blueinredohio]

2. What happens now when medical personnel

who don't want to be vaccinated file a lawsuit citing discrimination? Will we just have to hope for the best because we won't know who is vaccinated and who isnt?

[FBaggins]

3. It's plenty straight. The author just doesn't agree with overturning good policy

A large volcano erupts in the pacific - sending small rocks high enough into the atmosphere that they create a months-long threat to everyone in the country. All you have to do is wear a hard hat to ensure your safety.

The fact that everyone should wear a hard hat does not give the federal government the authority to mandate such a policy. OSHA can mandate hard hats on construction sites because the need for one is a normal occupational hazard on construction sites. But the fact that Everyone would now benefit from the policy does not mean that OSHA has the authority to mandate that all workers must wear one.

Similarly - exposure to viruses is a natural occupational hazard in hospitals - and thus OSHA has always had the authority to regulate workplace safety in that area. The fact that a pandemic now threatens everyone does not create a new authority.

You don’t have to agree with it… but it’s a clear enough distinction

[leftstreet]

4. +1

What an outstanding example

Not one of the overfed journalists or pundits littering the media with their eXpeRt oPinIons has made more sense

[uponit7771]

5. COVID's effect is not worksite restricted and I can get COVID from a coworker I can't get legally

... hit on the head from anyone affected by small rocks form the volcano.

[FBaggins]

7. That would be a fine argument against "my body my choice"

But that isn’t the rationale for the decision.

There’s really no question that government has an interest in public health. The question is which level(s) of government have the power to mandate vaccination. We’ve known for over a century that states clearly do. But the federal government does not hold that power to the same degree or in the same way (if at all).

Five justices, at least preliminarily, appear to see a commerce clause connection for workplace hazards that are clearly connected to the specific occupation.

Agree or disagree with the distinction, but it’s a clear one. The two rulings are not inherently contradictory.

[Hekate]

6. Just one small quibble about volcanic ash: it's bad to breathe