On the evening of Wednesday, December 22, 2021, the Supreme Court of the United States announced that it will hold a special session on January 7, 2022, to hear oral argument in cases concerning whether two Biden administration vaccine mandates should be stayed. One is an interim final rule promulgated by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”); the other is an Emergency Temporary Standard (“ETS”) issued by the U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”). The CMS interim final rule, presently stayed in 24 states, would require COVID-19 vaccination for staff employed at Medicare and Medicaid certified providers and suppliers. The OSHA ETS, which requires businesses with 100 or more employees to ensure that workers are vaccinated against the coronavirus or otherwise to undergo weekly COVID-19 testing, was allowed to take effect when a divided panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, to which the consolidated challenges had been assigned by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation issued a ruling, on December 17, 2021, lifting a stay that had been previously entered by the Fifth Circuit. Multiple private sector litigants and states immediately challenged the decision.
The Supreme Court rarely holds oral argument on emergency applications. Generally, they are handled “on the papers” and, more often than not, are ruled upon by a single Justice, who could refer the matter for determination by the entire Court. In the instant cases, the essential issue is whether the Executive Branch acted within the authority delegated to it by Congress. Justices across the ideological spectrum apparently are in agreement that the pandemic-related public health and safety issues are of such immediate importance that it is appropriate for the entire Court to address preliminary matters as expeditiously as possible.
The Court will address only whether the mandates should be preliminarily enjoined pending litigation and decision in the lower courts. The standard for granting preliminary relief, however, involves determining whether the parties seeking stays have demonstrated a likelihood of ultimate success on the merits. Thus, while the January 7 arguments might trigger multiple opinions from the Court, the Justices’ decision to grant or deny stays will not be a final decision as to the lawfulness of the mandates. Nevertheless, whatever opinions are delivered might open a window into the Justices’ thinking as to the ultimate fate of the Biden mandates, which, though first to be decided upon by lower courts, likely will return to the Supreme Court.
Note that the cases before the Supreme Court do not involve individual employers’ self-imposed mandates with respect to vaccination and testing, or state and local mandates. Such mandates, which frequently are being upheld by the courts, might be affected by labor and employment discrimination laws, but they do not concern the authority of the Executive Branch to issue the vaccination mandates. That is what the stay petitions in the Supreme Court are about.
The two matters before the Supreme Court are Biden v. Missouri and Becerra v. Louisiana, challenging the CMS interim final rule, and National Federation of Independent Business v. OSHA and Ohio v. OSHA, which challenge the OSHA ETS.
About this Author
STUART M. GERSON is a Member of the Firm in the Litigation and Health Care & Life Sciences practices, in the firm’s Washington, DC, and New York offices. Much of Mr. Gerson’s practice has been centered on providing representation to clients in the health care industry (including insurers, hospitals, pharmaceutical manufacturers, managed care providers, and private equity funds, among others). He has extensive experience litigating cases involving the cybersecurity of health care information, trade secrets, and other confidential data as well as civil…
Traycee Ellen Klein is a Member of the Firm of the Employment, Labor & Workforce Management practice, in the firm’s New York office.
Ms. Klein’s experience includes:
Advising employers in all facets of labor and employment law
Defending employers in all phases of EEOC and local FEP administrative actions and in federal and state court litigations
Litigation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Family Medical Leave Act, and analogous…
You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review’s (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC’s Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.
Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com intended to be a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional. NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us.
Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.
The National Law Review – National Law Forum LLC 4700 Gilbert Ave. Suite 47 #230 Western Springs, IL 60558 Telephone (708) 357-3317 or toll free (877) 357-3317. If you would ike to contact us via email please click here.
Menu