{"id":260153,"date":"2022-01-15T10:00:14","date_gmt":"2022-01-15T04:30:14","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=260153"},"modified":"2022-01-14T17:52:27","modified_gmt":"2022-01-14T12:22:27","slug":"biden-administrations-vaccine-mandate","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/01\/15\/biden-administrations-vaccine-mandate\/","title":{"rendered":"SCOTUS: Biden Administration\u2019s Vaccine Mandate: Yay or Nay– 2 Cases; 2 Scenarios"},"content":{"rendered":"

Supreme Court of The United States: <\/strong>The Full Bench of the SCOTUS on 13th<\/sup> January, 2022 gave its decision on the Vaccine Mandates issued for large employers and healthcare workers. While the Court with a ratio of 6:3, put a stay on the Biden Administration’s vaccine-or-test rule for large private employers<\/strong><\/em>; however, at the same time the Bench with a ratio of 5:4, upheld a regulation issued by the Secretary of Health and Human Services that mandated vaccines for employees at hospitals, nursing homes and other healthcare providers<\/em><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

\n

National Federation of Independent Businesses v. Dept. of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration \u00a0<\/strong><\/span><\/h4>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Background: <\/strong><\/span>In the backdrop of unprecedented challenges posed by Covid19 pandemic and in view of the rising cases, on September 9, 2021, President Biden announced a new plan to require more Americans to be vaccinated. The Secretary of Labor, acting through the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (hereinafter OSHA), thus enacted a vaccine mandate for USA\u2019s work force<\/strong>. The mandate was applicable to roughly 84 million workers, covering approximately all employers with at least 100 employees. It required that covered workers receive a COVID\u201319 vaccine<\/em><\/strong>, and it pre-empts contrary state laws. The only exception is for workers who obtain a medical test each week at their own expense and on their own time, and also wear a mask each workday.<\/p>\n

The Congress enacted the Occupational Safety and Health Act in 1970 <\/strong>in order to – ensure occupational safety\u2014\u201csafe and healthful working conditions.\u201d by enforcing occupational safety and health stand\u00adards promulgated by the Secretary. Such stand\u00adards must be \u201creasonably necessary or appropriate to pro\u00advide safe or healthful employment.\u201d They must also be developed using a rigorous pro\u00adcess that includes notice, comment, and an opportunity for a public hearing<\/em>.<\/p>\n

The Challenge:<\/strong> <\/span>OSHA\u2019s \u2018never done before<\/em>\u2019 Vaccine Mandate was challenged by many States, businesses, and nonprofit organizations in Courts of Appeals across USA. The Fifth Circuit initially entered a stay, but when the cases were consolidated before the Sixth Circuit, that court lifted the stay and allowed OSHA\u2019s rule to take effect. The challengers contended that OSHA\u2019s mandate exceeds its statutory authority and is therefore unlawful.<\/p>\n

Key Observations by the Majority:<\/span> <\/strong>The Majority comprising of John Roberts, CJ., Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, Neil Gorsuch (concurring) and Amy Coney Barret, JJ., focused upon the core issue of institutional competence- whether the 1970 Act plainly authorizes the OSHA\u2019s mandate. It was observed that, \u201cAdministrative agencies are creatures of statute. They accordingly possess only the authority that Congress has provided<\/em>\u201d. Mandating roughly 82 million Americans \u201cto either obtain a COVID\u201319 vaccine or undergo weekly medical testing at their own expense<\/em>\u201d is a major encroachment in the life and health of a vast number of employees<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

The majority observed that the Act empowers the Secretary to set workplace safety standards, not broad public health measures<\/em>; furthermore no provision of the Act addresses public health more generally, which falls outside of OSHA\u2019s sphere of expertise. \u201cAlthough COVID\u201319 is a risk that occurs in many workplaces, it is not an oc\u00adcupational hazard in most. COVID\u201319 can and does spread at home, schools, sporting events, and gatherings. That kind of universal risk is no different from the day-to-day dangers that all face from crime, air pollution, or any number of communicable dis\u00adeases\u201d<\/em>; therefore permitting OSHA to regulate the hazards of daily life, would significantly ex\u00adpand OSHA\u2019s regulatory authority without clear congres\u00adsional authorization<\/em><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

The majority further noted that OSHA indeed has the authority to regulate occu\u00adpation-specific risks related to COVID\u201319, however, their indiscrimi\u00adnate approach fails to take account of a crucial distinction between occupational risk and risk more generally and ac\u00adcordingly the vaccine mandate takes on the character of a general public health measure, rather than an occupational safety or health standard<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

Lastly, the majority noted that in its half century of existence, OSHA has never adopted a broad public health regulation of this kind\u2014addressing a threat that is untethered, in any causal sense, from the workplace. \u201cThis lack of historical precedent, coupled with the breadth of authority that the Secretary now claims, is a \u201ctelling indication\u201d that the man\u00addate extends beyond the agency\u2019s legitimate reach\u201d.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

With the aforementioned observations, the Court put a stay on OSHA\u2019s Covid\u201319 Vaccination and Testing; Emergency Temporary Standard, 86 Fed. Reg. 61402.<\/p>\n

The Dissent: \u00a0<\/strong><\/span>Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, JJ., dissented with the decision to stay the vaccine mandate for the work force. Expressing their disappointment with the reasoning applied by the majority, the Judges observed that OSHA – an agency charged by Congress with safeguarding employees from workplace dangers has decided that action is needed by thoroughly evaluating the risks that the disease poses to workers across all sectors of the economy. It has considered the extent to which various pol\u00adicies will mitigate those risks and the costs those policies will entail. After detailed considerations it landed on an approach that encourages vaccination, but allows employers to use masking and test\u00ading instead. In doing all this, it has acted within the four corners of its statutory authorization. OSHA, has responded in the way necessary to alleviate the dan\u00adger\u201d that workplace exposure to the \u201cnew hazard\u201d the COVID\u201319 poses to employees across the USA,<\/strong> \u201cfor OSHA is responsible to the President, and the President is responsible to\u2014and can be held to account by\u2014the American public<\/em>\u201d.<\/p>\n

The dissenting Judges also stated that as disease and death are raging due to the pandemic, this Court\u2019s decision to tell off the concerned agency that it cannot respond in the most effective way possible, undercuts the capacity of the responsible federal officials, acting well within the scope of their au\u00adthority, to protect American workers from grave danger. \u201c<\/strong>Who decides how much protection, and of what kind, American workers need from COVID\u201319? An agency with expertise in workplace health and safety, act\u00ading as Congress and the President authorized? Or a court, lacking any knowledge of how to safeguard workplaces, and insulated from responsibility for any damage it causes?<\/em>\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n

\n

Joseph R. Biden Jr. v. Missouri <\/strong><\/span><\/h4>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Background:<\/span> <\/strong>The instant matter dealt with the same issue, but this time the concerned sector was healthcare. \u00a0In November 2021, <\/em><\/strong>the Secretary of Health and Human Services announced that, in order to receive Medicare and Medicaid funding, participating facilities must ensure that their staff (unless exempt for medical or religious reasons) are vaccinated against Covid\u201319. <\/em><\/strong>A facility\u2019s failure to comply would lead to monetary penalties, denial of payment for new admis\u00adsions, and ultimately termination of participation in the programs<\/em><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

Submissions: <\/strong><\/span>The Secretary submitted before the Court that the interim rule was issued after finding that vaccina\u00adtion of healthcare workers against COVID\u201319 was neces\u00adsary for the health and safety of individuals to whom care and services are furnished. That deter\u00admination was based on data showing that COVID\u201319 can spread rapidly among healthcare workers and from them to patients, and that such spread is more likely when healthcare workers are unvaccinated and any further delay would endanger patient health and safety, given the spread of the Delta variant and the upcoming winter season.<\/p>\n

The States of Louisiana and Missouri challenged the mandate terming it as arbitrary and impulsive and that the Secretary examine the relevant data before imposing the vac\u00adcine mandate instead of a testing mandate. They also contended that in issuing the mandate, the Secretary departed from the agency\u2019s prior approach of merely encouraging vaccination.<\/p>\n

Key Observations: <\/strong><\/span>For this matter, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh along with Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, JJ., noted the overwhelming support that the vaccine mandate got from the healthcare workers and public health officials.<\/p>\n

Deliberating upon the question that whether the Secretary had exceeded his statutory authority in issuing the vaccine mandate in order ensure eligibility for Medicare and Medicaid dollars, the majority stated that Congress has authorized the Secretary to impose conditions on the receipt of Medicaid and Medicare funds that \u201cthe Secretary finds necessary in the interest of the health and safety of individuals who are furnished services<\/em>\u201d. Given the highly dangerous and contagious nature of Covid19, especially for the patients, the Secretary determined that a COVID\u201319 vaccine man\u00addate will substantially reduce the likelihood that healthcare workers will contract the virus and transmit it to their patients and concluded that a vaccine mandate was \u201cnecessary to pro\u00admote and protect patient health and safety\u201d in the face of the ongoing pandemic.<\/em> <\/strong>\u00a0Ensuring that providers take steps to avoid transmitting a dangerous virus to their patients is con\u00adsistent with the fundamental principle of the medical pro\u00adfession.<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Majority concluded their observations by holding that the Secretary of Health and Human Services did nothing out of his statutory purview in issuing the vaccine mandate fir the healthcare workers. \u201cThe challenges posed by a global pandemic do not allow a federal agency to exercise power that Congress has not con\u00adferred upon it. At the same time, such unprecedented cir\u00adcumstances provide no grounds for limiting the exercise of authorities the agency has long been recognized to have<\/em><\/strong>\u201d.<\/p>\n

The Dissent: <\/strong><\/span>Meanwhile Amy Coney Barret, Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, JJ., dissented on the matter. Commenting upon how the Executive \u2018already touches nearly every aspect of Americans\u2019 lives<\/em>\u2019, the Judges noted that Majority\u2019s decision will \u201cripple through administrative agen\u00adcies\u2019 future decision making<\/em>\u201d because if Congress had wanted to grant the concerned authority to impose a nationwide vaccine mandate, and consequently alter the state-federal balance, it would have said so clearly.<\/p>\n

In conclud\u00ading that the Secretary had good cause to avoid notice-and-comment rulemaking while issuing the vaccine mandate, \u201cthe Court shifts the presumption against com\u00adpliance with procedural strictures from the unelected agency to the people they regulate. Neither CMS nor the Court articulates a limiting principle for why, after an un\u00adexplained and unjustified delay, an agency can regulate first and listen later, and then put more than 10 million healthcare workers to the choice of their jobs or an irre\u00adversible medical treatment<\/em><\/strong>\u201d.<\/p>\n

[NFIB v. OSHA, Nos. 21A244 and 21A247 and Biden v. Missouri, Nos. 21A240 and 21A241, decided on 13.1.2022]<\/p>\n

\n

Sucheta Sarkar, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.<\/span><\/h4>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Supreme Court of The United States: The Full Bench of the SCOTUS on 13th January, 2022 gave its decision on the Vaccine <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67011,"featured_media":32691,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,12],"tags":[41412,30014,30735,48362,37902],"class_list":["post-260153","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-foreigncourts","tag-covid19","tag-scotus","tag-usa","tag-vaccination-mandate","tag-vaccine"],"yoast_head":"\nSCOTUS: Biden Administration\u2019s Vaccine Mandate: Yay or Nay-- 2 Cases; 2 Scenarios | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Biden Administration\u2019s Vaccine Mandate\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/01\/15\/biden-administrations-vaccine-mandate\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"SCOTUS: Biden Administration\u2019s Vaccine Mandate: Yay or Nay-- 2 Cases; 2 Scenarios\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Biden Administration\u2019s Vaccine Mandate\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/01\/15\/biden-administrations-vaccine-mandate\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2022-01-15T04:30:14+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1330\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"887\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2022\\\/01\\\/15\\\/biden-administrations-vaccine-mandate\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2022\\\/01\\\/15\\\/biden-administrations-vaccine-mandate\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Editor\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"headline\":\"SCOTUS: Biden Administration\u2019s Vaccine Mandate: Yay or Nay– 2 Cases; 2 Scenarios\",\"datePublished\":\"2022-01-15T04:30:14+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2022\\\/01\\\/15\\\/biden-administrations-vaccine-mandate\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":1721,\"commentCount\":0,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2022\\\/01\\\/15\\\/biden-administrations-vaccine-mandate\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2016\\\/01\\\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg\",\"keywords\":[\"COVID19\",\"SCOTUS\",\"USA\",\"vaccination mandate\",\"Vaccine\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Case Briefs\",\"Foreign Courts\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2022\\\/01\\\/15\\\/biden-administrations-vaccine-mandate\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2022\\\/01\\\/15\\\/biden-administrations-vaccine-mandate\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2022\\\/01\\\/15\\\/biden-administrations-vaccine-mandate\\\/\",\"name\":\"SCOTUS: Biden Administration\u2019s Vaccine Mandate: Yay or Nay-- 2 Cases; 2 Scenarios | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2022\\\/01\\\/15\\\/biden-administrations-vaccine-mandate\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2022\\\/01\\\/15\\\/biden-administrations-vaccine-mandate\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2016\\\/01\\\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2022-01-15T04:30:14+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"description\":\"Biden Administration\u2019s Vaccine Mandate\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2022\\\/01\\\/15\\\/biden-administrations-vaccine-mandate\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2022\\\/01\\\/15\\\/biden-administrations-vaccine-mandate\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2022\\\/01\\\/15\\\/biden-administrations-vaccine-mandate\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2016\\\/01\\\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2016\\\/01\\\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg\",\"width\":1330,\"height\":887,\"caption\":\"Supreme Court of The United States\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2022\\\/01\\\/15\\\/biden-administrations-vaccine-mandate\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"SCOTUS: Biden Administration\u2019s Vaccine Mandate: Yay or Nay– 2 Cases; 2 Scenarios\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\",\"name\":\"Editor\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Editor\"},\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/author\\\/editor_4\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"SCOTUS: Biden Administration\u2019s Vaccine Mandate: Yay or Nay-- 2 Cases; 2 Scenarios | SCC Times","description":"Biden Administration\u2019s Vaccine Mandate","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/01\/15\/biden-administrations-vaccine-mandate\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"SCOTUS: Biden Administration\u2019s Vaccine Mandate: Yay or Nay-- 2 Cases; 2 Scenarios","og_description":"Biden Administration\u2019s Vaccine Mandate","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/01\/15\/biden-administrations-vaccine-mandate\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2022-01-15T04:30:14+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1330,"height":887,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Editor","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Editor","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/01\/15\/biden-administrations-vaccine-mandate\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/01\/15\/biden-administrations-vaccine-mandate\/"},"author":{"name":"Editor","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"headline":"SCOTUS: Biden Administration\u2019s Vaccine Mandate: Yay or Nay– 2 Cases; 2 Scenarios","datePublished":"2022-01-15T04:30:14+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/01\/15\/biden-administrations-vaccine-mandate\/"},"wordCount":1721,"commentCount":0,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/01\/15\/biden-administrations-vaccine-mandate\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg","keywords":["COVID19","SCOTUS","USA","vaccination mandate","Vaccine"],"articleSection":["Case Briefs","Foreign Courts"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/01\/15\/biden-administrations-vaccine-mandate\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/01\/15\/biden-administrations-vaccine-mandate\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/01\/15\/biden-administrations-vaccine-mandate\/","name":"SCOTUS: Biden Administration\u2019s Vaccine Mandate: Yay or Nay-- 2 Cases; 2 Scenarios | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/01\/15\/biden-administrations-vaccine-mandate\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/01\/15\/biden-administrations-vaccine-mandate\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg","datePublished":"2022-01-15T04:30:14+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"description":"Biden Administration\u2019s Vaccine Mandate","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/01\/15\/biden-administrations-vaccine-mandate\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/01\/15\/biden-administrations-vaccine-mandate\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/01\/15\/biden-administrations-vaccine-mandate\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg","width":1330,"height":887,"caption":"Supreme Court of The United States"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/01\/15\/biden-administrations-vaccine-mandate\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"SCOTUS: Biden Administration\u2019s Vaccine Mandate: Yay or Nay– 2 Cases; 2 Scenarios"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe","name":"Editor","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Editor"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":232257,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/07\/15\/scotus-validates-promulgation-of-rules-imposing-moral-and-religious-exemptions-on-providing-contraceptive-coverage-to-women-by-their-employers\/","url_meta":{"origin":260153,"position":0},"title":"SCOTUS validates promulgation of Rules imposing moral and religious exemptions on providing contraceptive coverage to women by their employers","author":"Editor","date":"July 15, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Sucheta Sarkar, Editorial Assistant has put this story together","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Supreme Court of The United States","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":240396,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/12\/09\/scotus-issues-one-sentence-refusal-to-republicans-seeking-to-overturn-joe-bidens-victory-in-the-state-of-pennsylvania\/","url_meta":{"origin":260153,"position":1},"title":"SCOTUS issues \u201cone-sentence\u201d refusal to Republicans seeking to overturn Joe Biden\u2019s victory in the state of Pennsylvania","author":"Editor","date":"December 9, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court of The United States (SCOTUS): In a major setback to the Republican Party\u2019s attempts to invalidate the results of recent Presidential Elections, Full Bench of the SCOTUS in a \u201cone sentence\u201d Order, refused a request from Pennsylvania Republicans to overturn Joseph R. Biden Jr.\u2019s victory in the state\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Hot Off The Press"","block_context":{"text":"Hot Off The Press","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/news\/hot_off_the_press\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Supreme Court of The United States","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":258227,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/08\/new-york-city-government-imposes-vaccine-mandate-on-private-sector-employers\/","url_meta":{"origin":260153,"position":2},"title":"New York City | Government imposes vaccine mandate on private sector employers","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"December 8, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"The Government of New York City has issued a coronavirus vaccine mandate for private employers in New York on December 6, 2021. Under the new mandate for private employers, employees who work in-person at private companies must have one dose of the vaccine by December 27, 2021. Remote workers will\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Foreign Legislation"","block_context":{"text":"Foreign Legislation","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/legislationupdates\/foreign\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/09\/Untitled-2-2.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/09\/Untitled-2-2.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/09\/Untitled-2-2.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/09\/Untitled-2-2.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/09\/Untitled-2-2.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":232170,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/07\/14\/breaking-scotus-allows-federal-executions-1st-federal-execution-in-17-years\/","url_meta":{"origin":260153,"position":3},"title":"BREAKING | SCOTUS allows Federal Executions; 1st federal executions in 17 years","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"July 14, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"United States Supreme Court with a ratio of 5:4 has cleared the way for the resumption of execution of federal prisoners. The Judges voted to allow the first executions on the federal level since 2003 (17 years) to proceed at the Federal Prison in Terre Haute, Indiana. The majority in\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Hot Off The Press"","block_context":{"text":"Hot Off The Press","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/news\/hot_off_the_press\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Supreme Court of The United States","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":250562,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/07\/01\/covid-19-vaccination-3\/","url_meta":{"origin":260153,"position":4},"title":"Gau HC | Priority vaccination for persons with disabilities; HC issues directives to Arunachal Pradesh Government","author":"Editor","date":"July 1, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Gauhati High Court: Nani Tagia, J., issued directions to the State government to provide priority vaccinations for persons with disabilities. The petitioner, a practising lawyer and a social activist, had filed instant PIL espousing the cause of the persons with disabilities in the State of Arunachal Pradesh within the meaning\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":249469,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/06\/09\/medical-treatment\/","url_meta":{"origin":260153,"position":5},"title":"Kar HC | Persons with disabilities are entitled to priority in medical treatment in light of S. 25 of Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016","author":"Editor","date":"June 9, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Karnataka High Court: A Division Bench of Abhay S Oka, CJ and Aravind Kumar, J. gave a slew of directions regarding vaccine allocation. \u00a0The Court took stock of the various aspect related to COVID vaccination in the State. \u00a0Mucormycosis- Black Fungus A submission was made before the Court regarding an\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/260153","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67011"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=260153"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/260153\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/32691"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=260153"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=260153"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=260153"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}