Placeholder canvas
Date: January 14, 2022

Supreme Court Blocks Osha’s Covid Vaccination-Or Test Rule By: Ashleigh N. Johnson

by foleyandmansfield
Date: January 14, 2022
by foleyandmansfield

Supreme Court Blocks Osha’s Covid Vaccination-Or Test Rule By: Ashleigh N. Johnson

Placeholder canvas

In a relatively quick turnaround, the US Supreme Court issued a pair of per curiam orders on January 13, 2022, blocking the Biden Administration’s “vaccine-or-testing” rule aimed at large employers, while allowing a separate rule mandating vaccination for certain health care workers to continue—for now. 

The Court’s first order blocked the Emergency Temporary Standard issued by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”). The OSHA rule required businesses that have over 100 workers to adopt either a COVID-19 vaccination mandate or have workers submit to weekly tests and wear face coverings.  The OSHA rule, published by the agency on November 5, 2021, was stayed by a number of lower courts.  The Court’s majority found that OSHA had exceeded its authority in issuing the vaccine mandate or test rule, stating, “The Act empowers [OSHA] to set workplace safety standards, not broad public health measures…no provision of the Act addresses public health more generally, which falls outside of OSHA’s sphere of expertise.” The ruling grants the stays of the OSHA rule pending further proceedings.

The second-order, issued by a vote of 5-4 of the justices, gave the federal government leave to enforce a separate workplace vaccination rule issued by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) while the Biden administration appeals two injunctions that blocked part of the rule.  The CMS, the majority found, acted within the authority granted to it by Congress.  “Congress has authorized the [CMS] to impose conditions on the receipt of Medicaid and Medicare funds that ‘the Secretary finds necessary in the interest of the health and safety of individuals who are furnished services.” The majority found that the rule issued by the CMS “fits neatly” within the terms of the statute.

 

The relevant opinions can be found here:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21a244_hgci.pdf

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21a240_d18e.pdf

 

Ashleigh N. Johnson

Partner – St. Louis

ajohnson@foleymansfield.com

314-925-5705

ashleigh.jpg

Amended FRE 702 Creates Path for Expert Challenges in Talc Litigation

A recent update to the federal rules governing the use of expert testimony/evidence in federal court will widely impact how scientific and medical evidence is presented to juries in federal matters, including talcum powder litigation. With the change to Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence (“FRE 702”), defendants […]

LEARN MORE

Summarizing “ILR Briefly: The Asbestos Over-Naming and Trust Transparency Problem: A Philadelphia Case Study”

Introduction Asbestos litigation has become a cornerstone of the American legal landscape, spanning over four decades, and involving more than a million individual personal injury claims across state and federal courts. In 2012, a commentary titled “The Philadelphia Story: Asbestos Litigation, Bankruptcy Trusts, and Changes in Exposure Allegations from 1991-2010” […]

LEARN MORE

Minnesota Legislature Seeks to Change Newly Effective Earned Safe and Sick Time Law

By now, employers should be familiar with and implementing (if applicable) Minnesota’s Earned Safe and Sick Time law (“ESST”) that took effect on January 1, 2024. ESST is paid leave that an employee may use when they or a family member are sick, need to see a doctor or medical […]

LEARN MORE