Federal Court Blocks Biden Administration’s Private Business COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate
By Zachary Stieber
November 6, 2021 Updated: November 7, 2021
A federal appeals court on Saturday blocked the Biden administration’s private employer COVID-19 vaccine mandate, asserting there may be constitutional issues with the requirement.
“Because the petitions give cause to believe there are grave statutory and constitutional issues with the mandate, the mandate is hereby STAYED pending further action by this court,” a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit said in the brief order.
The halt of the mandate, which was unveiled this week, is temporary as the case moves forward.
The case was brought by multiple businesses, including the American Family Association; multiple individuals; and several states, including Texas, Utah, and Mississippi.
Petitioners said the mandate, promulgated as an Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) by the Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), should be struck down because it exceeds OSHA’s authority under the Occupational Safety and Health Act.
They said that the authority is limited to workplace-related hazards while the risk from COVID-19 is “a society-wide danger.” They also said the mandate doesn’t make sense because determining whether COVID-19 is a workplace hazard depends on employees’ age and health, not how many co-workers they have.
“In an attempt to impose a nationwide vaccination mandate without approval from Congress, the executive branch has couched its COVID-19 vaccine mandate as an emergency workplace rule affecting nearly 100 million Americans. But the ETS is neither a workplace rule nor responsive to an emergency,” lawyers for the petitioners wrote in an emergency motion asking the court to impose a stay.
“Vaccination status is a public health issue that affects people throughout society; it is not a hazard particular to the workplace. And there is no need to use an emergency rule to address a pandemic that has been going on for nearly two years. Congress did not grant OSHA such sweeping powers in its authorizing statute,” they added.
Administration officials have in recent days said they’re confident the OSHA rule will withstand the flurry of legal challenges that were lodged after it was made public.
Solicitor of Labor Seema Nanda told The Epoch Times in an emailed statement that the administration is prepared to defend the mandate in court.
“The U.S. Department of Labor is confident in its legal authority to issue the emergency temporary standard on vaccination and testing. The Occupational Safety and Health Act explicitly gives OSHA the authority to act quickly in an emergency where the agency finds that workers are subjected to a grave danger and a new standard is necessary to protect them,” she said.
READ MORE
U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals 21-60845 PDF
******************************************************************
Biden Administration Asks Court to Combine Lawsuits Against OSHA Vaccine Mandate
By Zachary Stieber
November 8, 2021 Updated: November 8, 2021
bigger
The Biden administration is seeking a consolidation of the flurry of legal challenges that have been filed against its private employer COVID-19 vaccine mandate, which would affect 84 million workers if allowed to take effect.
A federal appeals court over the weekend put the mandate on hold as judges decide whether or not to overturn it.
Legal challenges against the mandate have raised “grave statutory and constitutional issues,” the court panel said.
Because at least a dozen lawsuits have been filed against the emergency rule, promulgated by the Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the panel should abide by a federal law that says multiple challenges should be combined, government lawyers told the judges in a Nov. 8 filing.
The law says that in such cases courts “shall, by means of random selection, designate one court of appeals, from among the courts of appeals in which petitions for review have been filed.”
That means that a single appeals court will handle the combined filings, instead of the five circuits that have received challenges so far.
But until they’re combined, the separate cases are still proceeding, Buck Dougherty, senior attorney at the Liberty Justice Center, which is representing plaintiffs in the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals case, told The Epoch Times.
The appeals court on Saturday ruled to stay the mandate until further order from the court and told the government to reply to a motion for a permanent injunction by 5 p.m. local time on Monday.
The government had not filed any other papers by the deadline, according to a review of the docket.
The Department of Justice did not respond to a request for comment.
The Republican National Committee, Answers in Genesis, and Kentucky have brought other challenges, as have Bentley Services, Phillips Manufacturing & Tower, Southern Baptist Theological, Tankcraft Corp., Indiana, the Job Creators Network, and Florida. Together, the filings have been lodged across at least five circuits.
Biden administration lawyers said in their filing that they expect a lottery selection for the court to take place on or about Nov. 16. They also informed other appeals courts of the upcoming lottery.
Each circuit has a different makeup of judges, which could affect how the challenges are decided.
“We have a strong case regardless of what circuit we’re in,” Dougherty said.
The Fifth Circuit appeals court panel later Monday ordered the government to, in addition to other filings it planned to lodge, to respond to a motion for a longer stay filed by petitioner LeadingEdge by noon on Nov. 10.
The stay brought temporary relief for many businesses that would be forced to obtain proof of COVID-19 vaccination from workers or make them get tested on a weekly basis for COVID-19.
Every business with 100 or more workers falls under the mandate, which has a Jan. 4, 2022, deadline. Smaller businesses may face the vaccination rules, the Department of Labor has indicated.
Saturday’s ruling was widely interpreted as applying nationwide, though some doubt was indicated in another case.
