Breaking News
Get Actionable Insights with InvestingPro+: Start 7 Day FREE Trial Register here
Investing Pro 0
Ad-Free Version. Upgrade your Investing.com experience. Save up to 40% More details

U.S. Supreme Court blocks Biden vaccine-or-test policy for large businesses

PoliticsJan 13, 2022 08:11PM ET
Saved. See Saved Items.
This article has already been saved in your Saved Items
 
© Reuters. FILE PHOTO: The United States Supreme Court in Washington, U.S., May 17, 2021. REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstein/File Photo

By Lawrence Hurley and Andrew Chung

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday blocked President Joe Biden's COVID-19 vaccination-or-testing mandate for large businesses - a policy the conservative justices deemed an improper imposition on the lives and health of many Americans - while endorsing a separate federal vaccine requirement for healthcare facilities.

Biden voiced disappointment with the conservative-majority court's decision to halt his administration's rule requiring vaccines or weekly COVID-19 tests for employees at businesses with at least 100 employees. Biden said it now is up to states and employers to decide whether to require workers "to take the simple and effective step of getting vaccinated."

The court was divided in both cases, centering on pandemic-related federal regulations at a time of escalating coronavirus infections driven by the Omicron variant in a nation that leads the world with more than 845,000 COVID-19 deaths.

It ruled 6-3, with the six conservative justices in the majority and three liberal justices dissenting, in blocking the rule involving large businesses - a policy that applied to more than 80 million employees. The court's majority downplayed the risk COVID-19 specifically poses in the workplace, comparing it instead to "day-to-day" crime and pollution hazards that individuals face everywhere.

The vote was 5-4 to allow the healthcare worker rule, which requires vaccination for about 10.3 million workers at 76,000 healthcare facilities including hospitals and nursing homes that accept money from the Medicare and Medicaid government health insurance programs for elderly, disabled and low-income Americans. Two conservatives, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, joined the liberals in the majority in that case.

In a statement, Biden said the court's decision allowing the healthcare worker mandate "will save lives" and his administration will enforce it. Workers must be vaccinated by the end of February.

The court heard arguments last Friday in the legal fight over temporary mandates issued in November by two federal agencies aimed at increasing U.S. vaccination rates and making workplaces and healthcare settings safer. The cases tested presidential powers to address a swelling public health crisis.

In an unsigned ruling, the court said the rule affecting large businesses, issued by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), was not an ordinary use of federal power.

"It is instead a significant encroachment on the lives - and health - of a vast number of employees," the court said.

"Permitting OSHA to regulate the hazards of daily life -simply because most Americans have jobs and face those same risks while on the clock - would significantly expand OSHA's regulatory authority without clear congressional authorization," the court added.

Challengers led by the state of Ohio and the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), which represents employers, asked the justices to block OSHA's rule after a lower court lifted an injunction against it. Companies were supposed to start showing they were in compliance starting this past Monday.

In dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer wrote on behalf of the liberal justices that the decision "stymies the federal government's ability to counter the unparalleled threat that COVID-19 poses to our nation's workers."

'WELCOME RELIEF'

"Today's decision is welcome relief for America's small businesses, who are still trying to get their business back on track since the beginning of the pandemic," said Karen Harned, executive director of the NFIB's legal arm.

The high court blocked a Dec. 17 decision by the Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that had allowed the mandate to go into effect.

In the healthcare facilities case, the court's differently comprised majority concluded that the regulation "fits neatly" within the power Congress conferred on the government to impose conditions on Medicaid and Medicare funds, which includes policies that protect health and safety.

"After all, ensuring that providers take steps to avoid transmitting a dangerous virus to their patients is consistent with the fundamental principle of the medical profession: first, do no harm," the court said.

Four conservative justices dissented from the healthcare facility decision, concluding that Congress had not given the federal agency the authority to require vaccinations for millions of healthcare workers. In one dissent, Justice Samuel Alito doubted that the agency can "put more than 10 million healthcare workers to the choice of their jobs or an irreversible medical treatment."

The justices lifted orders by federal judges in Missouri and Louisiana blocking the policy in 24 states, allowing the administration to enforce it nearly nationwide. Enforcement was blocked in Texas by a lower court in separate litigation not at issue before the Supreme Court.

Gerald Harmon, president of the American Medical Association physicians group, said that although he is pleased the court allowed the healthcare worker mandate, the broader workplace rule is also needed.

"Workplace transmission has been a major factor in the spread of COVID-19," Harmon added. "Now more than ever, workers in all settings across the country need commonsense, evidence-based protections against COVID-19 infection, hospitalization and death."

U.S. Supreme Court blocks Biden vaccine-or-test policy for large businesses
 

Related Articles

Add a Comment

Comment Guidelines

We encourage you to use comments to engage with other users, share your perspective and ask questions of authors and each other. However, in order to maintain the high level of discourse we’ve all come to value and expect, please keep the following criteria in mind:  

  •            Enrich the conversation, don’t trash it.

  •           Stay focused and on track. Only post material that’s relevant to the topic being discussed. 

  •           Be respectful. Even negative opinions can be framed positively and diplomatically. Avoid profanity, slander or personal attacks directed at an author or another user. Racism, sexism and other forms of discrimination will not be tolerated.

  • Use standard writing style. Include punctuation and upper and lower cases. Comments that are written in all caps and contain excessive use of symbols will be removed.
  • NOTE: Spam and/or promotional messages and comments containing links will be removed. Phone numbers, email addresses, links to personal or business websites, Skype/Telegram/WhatsApp etc. addresses (including links to groups) will also be removed; self-promotional material or business-related solicitations or PR (ie, contact me for signals/advice etc.), and/or any other comment that contains personal contact specifcs or advertising will be removed as well. In addition, any of the above-mentioned violations may result in suspension of your account.
  • Doxxing. We do not allow any sharing of private or personal contact or other information about any individual or organization. This will result in immediate suspension of the commentor and his or her account.
  • Don’t monopolize the conversation. We appreciate passion and conviction, but we also strongly believe in giving everyone a chance to air their point of view. Therefore, in addition to civil interaction, we expect commenters to offer their opinions succinctly and thoughtfully, but not so repeatedly that others are annoyed or offended. If we receive complaints about individuals who take over a thread or forum, we reserve the right to ban them from the site, without recourse.
  • Only English comments will be allowed.

Perpetrators of spam or abuse will be deleted from the site and prohibited from future registration at Investing.com’s discretion.

Write your thoughts here
 
Are you sure you want to delete this chart?
 
Post
Post also to:
 
Replace the attached chart with a new chart ?
1000
Your ability to comment is currently suspended due to negative user reports. Your status will be reviewed by our moderators.
Please wait a minute before you try to comment again.
Thanks for your comment. Please note that all comments are pending until approved by our moderators. It may therefore take some time before it appears on our website.
Comments (29)
William Smith
William Smith Jan 14, 2022 10:23AM ET
Saved. See Saved Items.
This comment has already been saved in your Saved Items
So sad 3 justices voted that individuals have no rights under the Constitution. Really scary.
Jay Garrelts
Jay Garrelts Jan 13, 2022 11:22PM ET
Saved. See Saved Items.
This comment has already been saved in your Saved Items
So People commenting think there’s a difference between republicans and democrats and are investors…. Yeah the whole system is coming down we’re doomed
John Doe
ForexInsiders Jan 13, 2022 11:22PM ET
Saved. See Saved Items.
This comment has already been saved in your Saved Items
Left wing, Right wing, same bird
Jt Overstreet
Jt Overstreet Jan 13, 2022 9:30PM ET
Saved. See Saved Items.
This comment has already been saved in your Saved Items
Interesting. 6-3 is an overwhelming majority, yet Reuters subtly undermines the decision by constantly saying "conservative", as if this were a partisan decision.
Jamie Kent
Jamie Kent Jan 13, 2022 9:30PM ET
Saved. See Saved Items.
This comment has already been saved in your Saved Items
It's called propaganda
Miami CG
Miami CG Jan 13, 2022 7:23PM ET
Saved. See Saved Items.
This comment has already been saved in your Saved Items
Freedom of choice
John Laurens
John Laurens Jan 13, 2022 7:11PM ET
Saved. See Saved Items.
This comment has already been saved in your Saved Items
Because it's unconstitutional, and any hack high school government teacher could have told them that. President Loaded Diaper never fails to impress.. lol
pcg upstate
pcg upstate Jan 13, 2022 7:09PM ET
Saved. See Saved Items.
This comment has already been saved in your Saved Items
All of you leftists Biden Dynasty is crashing!!!
pcg upstate
pcg upstate Jan 13, 2022 7:09PM ET
Saved. See Saved Items.
This comment has already been saved in your Saved Items
unfortunately, all of us innocents are in the cross hair's
Frederick Chotsky
Chotsky Jan 13, 2022 6:43PM ET
Saved. See Saved Items.
This comment has already been saved in your Saved Items
Badakathcare, Corn Pop, and the kids like my hairy legs!
Pilot TwoFive
Pilot TwoFive Jan 13, 2022 6:20PM ET
Saved. See Saved Items.
This comment has already been saved in your Saved Items
No not the conservative justices.  All the justices ruled it unconstitutional.  They are a body of jurists not a political arm of government like you leftists think it is.
Dustin Whitsett
Goin_Broke Jan 13, 2022 6:08PM ET
Saved. See Saved Items.
This comment has already been saved in your Saved Items
So constitutional rights are subjective to your occupation now....interesting
Byedin Youlost
Byedin Youlost Jan 13, 2022 5:40PM ET
Saved. See Saved Items.
This comment has already been saved in your Saved Items
The left is finished
John Avenetti
John Avenetti Jan 13, 2022 5:40PM ET
Saved. See Saved Items.
This comment has already been saved in your Saved Items
I'd give up all my money if could come true. not even close
Stephen Fa
Stephen Fa Jan 13, 2022 5:40PM ET
Saved. See Saved Items.
This comment has already been saved in your Saved Items
They'll try another angle at the DNA reprogramming mandate.
 
Are you sure you want to delete this chart?
 
Post
 
Replace the attached chart with a new chart ?
1000
Your ability to comment is currently suspended due to negative user reports. Your status will be reviewed by our moderators.
Please wait a minute before you try to comment again.
Add Chart to Comment
Confirm Block

Are you sure you want to block %USER_NAME%?

By doing so, you and %USER_NAME% will not be able to see any of each other's Investing.com's posts.

%USER_NAME% was successfully added to your Block List

Since you’ve just unblocked this person, you must wait 48 hours before renewing the block.

Report this comment

I feel that this comment is:

Comment flagged

Thank You!

Your report has been sent to our moderators for review
Continue with Google
or
Sign up with Email