covid-19 /

Supreme Court Considers Biden's COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate for Businesses with More than 100 Workers

Those challenging the legality of the mandate says the Department of Labor does not have the authority to enforce the mandate

The Supreme Court heard arguments regarding the legality of the Biden Administration’s  COVID-19 mandate for businesses with more than 100 workers on Jan. 7.

Under the November mandate, businesses with more than 100 workers would have to require their workers to get the COVID-19 vaccine or comply with masking and testing protocols.

The nation’s highest court will ultimately determine if the federal government has the authority to enforce such a measure or if it had overstepped its authority.

More than 100 million workers would be impacted by the rule, which would be enforced by Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit blocked the mandate from going into effect days after it was issued.

The rule was reinstated by a different federal court in December. The court ruled that O.S.H.A. had a broad range of authority to enact safety measures and noted the possible danger of the COVID-19 pandemic to workers.

The case being presented to the Supreme Court consolidates National Federation of Independent Business v. Department of Labor and Ohio v. Department of Labor.

The justices heard oral arguments for more than two hours on Friday. One of the attorneys arguing against the federal mandate, Ohio solicitor general Ben Flowers, presented his case remotely because he had tested positive for COVID-19.

Scott Keller, the solicitor general of Texas, said “the mandate covering 84 million Americans will cause widespread labor shortages and is ‘one size fits all’ when some workplaces are higher risk and others are lower risk.”

Keller also said the enforcement of the mandate would be detrimental to the national economy.

US solicitor general Elizabeth Prelogar defended the vaccine-or-test mandate on behalf of the federal government. 

She hesitated when asked by Justice Samuel Alito if the government would object to the court taking an administrative stay to review the arguments and documents provided.

While she said she would leave it to the Court to decide if they needed time to review, she maintained that grave harm occurred every day that the order does not go into effect. She noted that O.S.H.A. had set an “aggressive” compliance deadline of Jan. 10 because of that concern.

“Yes,” Prelogar said. “We think lives are being lost every day.”

“In early arguments, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Neil Gorsuch suggested that government officials had overstepped, with Roberts declaring that it is ‘hard to argue’ that officials had been given the power to act by Congress,” reports Fox News. “Justice Amy Coney Barrett went on to suggest that one of the problems with the rule was its broad scope, while Justice Clarence Thomas suggested that the federal government may have greater powers during the pandemic.”

A brief administrative order that stays the enforcement of the mandate could be issued by the Court on Friday or sometime over the weekend.

Without the order, the O.S.H.A mask mandate for unvaccinated workers would go into effect on Monday, Jan. 7. The testing mandate would go into effect on Feb. 9.

*For corrections please email [email protected]*

14 responses to “Supreme Court Considers Biden’s COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate for Businesses with More than 100 Workers”

  1. Jason_N says:

    So this ETS (Emergency Temporary Standard) “power or authority” is a temporary situation by OSHA. By forcing people to take a medical procedure it becomes a permeant enforcement by proxy. There is no way to undo the shot and boosters. You cant untake this vaccine when at home like taking off a hard hat or gloves. By definition OSHA over steps long after the ETS is over because the vaccine is still in the body.

  2. JoeSC says:

    I don’t give a shit about what “makes us safer.” I give all the shits about what makes us freer.

  3. HerrDoktor says:

    I’m hearing too many arguments about what would “work” and what would “make us safer.” None of that matters. The morality of human rights overrides any sniveling fear of disease. The only reason these control freaks don’t have a universal vaccine mandate is because the rest of us are armed.

    Sup, Australia.

  4. Wolv256 says:

    If the Supreme Court doesn’t rule correctly on this we don’t have a country.

  5. Dacoop says:

    See you all in the golahg.

  6. csloce says:

    Great article. Suggested correction on the dates, Friday was January 7th.

  7. pandusa says:

    Reply to-SZELL-about the anvil arriving soon. I hope so too…BEEP! BEEP!

  8. pandusa says:

    My friends are squirming like worms in a frying pan …again. I am afraid my bestie gonna have a stroke or coronary event. She already had covid from working with sick patients . This was back when teachers unions and other fearless community leaders were hiding under their appears they still are. I just saw a SCOTUS justice lie or show gross ignorance on the subject. I don’t do legal, but my understanding is to mandate this- it must be safe and effective. The former they may debate,,, the later it obviously ISN’T ( also the original strain vax- wanes). It looks to me like the virus is extremely DIVERSE and INCLUSIVE and really doesn’t give a damn if you had the vax or not. So, why should one risk possible side effects if they do not want it? But we know it isn’t really about the virus… now is it?

  9. ApecoreBreakdown says:

    Im not getting the vaccine and if i get fired for it i’ll be forced to steal my food from leftoid fridges

  10. mitchellbk says:

    Maybe they’re paving the way for the future. Like the Belters who go to work and get ‘enhancements’ for moving large heavy objects. Then, come home and live with the ‘enhancements’ for the rest of their lives. It’s the future bro!

  11. TuckR8 says:

    It’s interesting listening to Sotomeyor in the opening arguments say there are trade-offs we need to consider. However, we need to do exactly what she already decided the verdict should be.

    You can hear them here:

  12. Szell says:

    I’m praying that anvil arrives soon.

  13. Szell says:

    WTF are we(the collective we) doing? We are two years into this “pandemic”. We are set up so well that hospitals are firing staff because, “Hey, you went through the roughest earliest part unvaxxed but now that’s it’s mutated into the sniffles and you WONT get this useless vax, you are now fired”.

    What happened in Kazakhstan needs to happen across the globe.

  14. That_Jason_down_the_road says:

    Pretty good summary. I listened to the whole thing while at work, and it was painful listening to the people argue for the mandate. These people arguing for the mandate are literally insane and just repeat the same fear mongering points over and over, every other sentence “grave danger, grave danger, grave danger”, the amount of deliberate lies is ridiculous.
    One day an anvil will fall on a swamp creature’s head and our reality will ascend from a clown world to a Tom and Jerry cartoon.