ReportWire

Tag: Vaccine Mandate

  • What to know about the Supreme Court arguments over Trump’s tariffs

    [ad_1]

    Three lower courts have ruled President Donald Trump’s use of emergency powers to impose worldwide tariffs to be illegal. Now the Supreme Court, with three justices Trump appointed and generally favorable to muscular presidential power, will have the final word.In roughly two dozen emergency appeals, the justices have largely gone along with Trump in temporarily allowing parts of his aggressive second-term agenda to take effect while lawsuits play out.But the case being argued Wednesday is the first in which the court will render a final decision on a Trump policy. The stakes are enormous, both politically and financially.The Republican president has made tariffs a central piece of his economic and foreign policy and has said it would be a “disaster” if the Supreme Court rules against him.Here are some things to know about the tariffs arguments at the Supreme Court:Tariffs are taxes on importsThey are paid by companies that import finished products or parts, and the added cost can be passed on to consumers.Through September, the government has reported collecting $195 billion in revenue generated from the tariffs.The Constitution gives Congress the power to impose tariffs, but Trump has claimed extraordinary power to act without congressional approval by declaring national emergencies under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act.In February, he invoked the law to impose tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China, saying that the illegal flow of immigrants and drugs across the U.S. border amounted to a national emergency and that the three countries needed to do more to stop it.In April, he imposed worldwide tariffs after declaring the United States’ longstanding trade deficits “a national emergency.”Libertarian-backed businesses and states challenged the tariffs in federal courtChallengers to Trump’s actions won rulings from a specialized trade court, a district judge in Washington and a business-focused appeals court, also in the nation’s capital.Those courts found that Trump could not justify tariffs under the emergency powers law, which doesn’t mention them. But they left the tariffs in place in the meantime.The appeals court relied on major questions, a legal doctrine devised by the Supreme Court that requires Congress to speak clearly on issues of “vast economic and political significance.”The major questions doctrine doomed several Biden policiesConservative majorities struck down three of then-President Joe Biden’s initiatives related to the coronavirus pandemic. The court ended the Democrat’s pause on evictions, blocked a vaccine mandate for large businesses and prevented student loan forgiveness that would have totaled $500 billion over 10 years.In comparison, the stakes in the tariff case are much higher. The taxes are estimated to generate $3 trillion over 10 years.The challengers in the tariffs case have cited writings by the three Trump appointees, Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, in calling on the court to apply similar limitations on a signal Trump policy.Barrett described a babysitter taking children on roller coasters and spending a night in a hotel based on a parent’s encouragement to “make sure the kids have fun.”“In the normal course, permission to spend money on fun authorizes a babysitter to take children to the local ice cream parlor or movie theater, not on a multiday excursion to an out-of-town amusement park,” Barrett wrote in the student loans case. “If a parent were willing to greenlight a trip that big, we would expect much more clarity than a general instruction to ‘make sure the kids have fun.’”Kavanaugh, though, has suggested the court should not apply the same limiting standard to foreign policy and national security issues.A dissenting appellate judge also wrote that Congress purposely gave presidents more latitude to act through the emergency powers law.Some of the businesses that sued also are raising a separate legal argument in an appeal to conservative justices, saying that Congress could not constitutionally delegate its taxing power to the president.The nondelegation principle has not been used in 90 years, since the Supreme Court struck down some New Deal legislation.But Gorsuch authored a dissent in June that would have found the Federal Communications Commission’s universal service fee an unconstitutional delegation. Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas joined the dissent.“What happens when Congress, weary of the hard business of legislating and facing strong incentives to pass the buck, cedes its lawmaking power, clearly and unmistakably, to an executive that craves it?” Gorsuch wrote.The justices could act more quickly than usual in issuing a decisionThe court only agreed to hear the case in September, scheduling arguments less than two months later. The quick turnaround, at least by Supreme Court standards, suggests that the court will try to act fast.High-profile cases can take half a year or more to resolve, often because the majority and dissenting opinions go through rounds of revision.But the court can act quickly when deadline pressure dictates. Most recently, the court ruled a week after hearing arguments in the TikTok case, unanimously upholding a law requiring the popular social media app to be banned unless it was sold by its Chinese parent company. Trump has intervened several times to keep the law from taking effect while negotiations continue with China.

    WASHINGTON —

    Three lower courts have ruled President Donald Trump’s use of emergency powers to impose worldwide tariffs to be illegal. Now the Supreme Court, with three justices Trump appointed and generally favorable to muscular presidential power, will have the final word.

    In roughly two dozen emergency appeals, the justices have largely gone along with Trump in temporarily allowing parts of his aggressive second-term agenda to take effect while lawsuits play out.

    But the case being argued Wednesday is the first in which the court will render a final decision on a Trump policy. The stakes are enormous, both politically and financially.

    The Republican president has made tariffs a central piece of his economic and foreign policy and has said it would be a “disaster” if the Supreme Court rules against him.

    Here are some things to know about the tariffs arguments at the Supreme Court:

    Tariffs are taxes on imports

    They are paid by companies that import finished products or parts, and the added cost can be passed on to consumers.

    Through September, the government has reported collecting $195 billion in revenue generated from the tariffs.

    The Constitution gives Congress the power to impose tariffs, but Trump has claimed extraordinary power to act without congressional approval by declaring national emergencies under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

    In February, he invoked the law to impose tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China, saying that the illegal flow of immigrants and drugs across the U.S. border amounted to a national emergency and that the three countries needed to do more to stop it.

    In April, he imposed worldwide tariffs after declaring the United States’ longstanding trade deficits “a national emergency.”

    Libertarian-backed businesses and states challenged the tariffs in federal court

    Challengers to Trump’s actions won rulings from a specialized trade court, a district judge in Washington and a business-focused appeals court, also in the nation’s capital.

    Those courts found that Trump could not justify tariffs under the emergency powers law, which doesn’t mention them. But they left the tariffs in place in the meantime.

    The appeals court relied on major questions, a legal doctrine devised by the Supreme Court that requires Congress to speak clearly on issues of “vast economic and political significance.”

    The major questions doctrine doomed several Biden policies

    Conservative majorities struck down three of then-President Joe Biden’s initiatives related to the coronavirus pandemic. The court ended the Democrat’s pause on evictions, blocked a vaccine mandate for large businesses and prevented student loan forgiveness that would have totaled $500 billion over 10 years.

    In comparison, the stakes in the tariff case are much higher. The taxes are estimated to generate $3 trillion over 10 years.

    The challengers in the tariffs case have cited writings by the three Trump appointees, Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, in calling on the court to apply similar limitations on a signal Trump policy.

    Barrett described a babysitter taking children on roller coasters and spending a night in a hotel based on a parent’s encouragement to “make sure the kids have fun.”

    “In the normal course, permission to spend money on fun authorizes a babysitter to take children to the local ice cream parlor or movie theater, not on a multiday excursion to an out-of-town amusement park,” Barrett wrote in the student loans case. “If a parent were willing to greenlight a trip that big, we would expect much more clarity than a general instruction to ‘make sure the kids have fun.’”

    Kavanaugh, though, has suggested the court should not apply the same limiting standard to foreign policy and national security issues.

    A dissenting appellate judge also wrote that Congress purposely gave presidents more latitude to act through the emergency powers law.

    Some of the businesses that sued also are raising a separate legal argument in an appeal to conservative justices, saying that Congress could not constitutionally delegate its taxing power to the president.

    The nondelegation principle has not been used in 90 years, since the Supreme Court struck down some New Deal legislation.

    But Gorsuch authored a dissent in June that would have found the Federal Communications Commission’s universal service fee an unconstitutional delegation. Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas joined the dissent.

    “What happens when Congress, weary of the hard business of legislating and facing strong incentives to pass the buck, cedes its lawmaking power, clearly and unmistakably, to an executive that craves it?” Gorsuch wrote.

    The justices could act more quickly than usual in issuing a decision

    The court only agreed to hear the case in September, scheduling arguments less than two months later. The quick turnaround, at least by Supreme Court standards, suggests that the court will try to act fast.

    High-profile cases can take half a year or more to resolve, often because the majority and dissenting opinions go through rounds of revision.

    But the court can act quickly when deadline pressure dictates. Most recently, the court ruled a week after hearing arguments in the TikTok case, unanimously upholding a law requiring the popular social media app to be banned unless it was sold by its Chinese parent company. Trump has intervened several times to keep the law from taking effect while negotiations continue with China.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • What to know about vaccine mandates in the U.S. and abroad

    [ad_1]

    U.S. states have relied on vaccine mandates since the 1800s, when a smallpox vaccine offered the first successful protection against a disease that had killed millions.

    More than a century later, Florida’s top public health official said vaccine requirements are unethical and unnecessary for high vaccination rates.

    “You can still have high vaccination numbers, just like the other countries who don’t do any mandates like Sweden, Norway, Denmark, the (United Kingdom), most of Canada,” Florida Surgeon General Dr. Joseph Ladapo said Oct. 16. “No mandates, really comparable vaccine uptake.”

    It’s true that some countries without vaccine requirements have high vaccination rates, on par with the U.S. But experts say that fact alone does not make it a given that the U.S. would follow the same pattern if it eliminates school vaccination requirements.

    Florida state law currently requires students in public and private schools from daycare through 12th grade to have specific immunizations. Families can opt out for religious or medical reasons. About 11% of Florida kindergarteners are not immunized, recent data shows. With Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’ backing, Ladapo is pushing to end the state’s school vaccine requirements.

    The countries Ladapo cited — Sweden, Norway, Denmark, the U.K. and parts of Canada — don’t have broad vaccine requirements, research shows. Their governments recommend such protections, though, and their health care systems offer conveniently accessible vaccines, for example. 

    UNICEF, a United Nations agency which calls itself the “global go-to for data on children,” measures how well countries provide routine childhood immunizations by looking at infant access to the third dose in a DTaP vaccine series that protects against diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis or whooping cough.

    In 2024, UNICEF and the World Health Organization reported that 94% of 1-year-olds in the United States had received three doses of the DTaP vaccine. That’s compared with Canada at 92%, Denmark at 96%, Norway at 97%, Sweden at 96% and the U.K. at 92%.

    Universal, government-provided health care and high trust in government likely influence those countries’ vaccine uptake, experts said. In the United States, many people can’t afford time off work or the cost of a doctor’s visit. There’s also less trust in the government. These factors could prevent the U.S. from having similar participation rates should the government eliminate school vaccine mandates.

    Universal health care, stronger government trust increase vaccination

    Multiple studies have linked vaccine mandates and increased vaccination rates. Although these studies found associations between the two, the research does not prove that mandates alone cause increased vaccination rates. Association is not the same as causation.

    Other factors that can affect vaccination rates often accompany mandates, including local efforts to improve vaccination access, increase documentation and combat vaccine hesitancy and refusal. 

    The countries Ladapo highlighted are high-income countries with policies that encourage vaccination and make vaccines accessible. 

    In Sweden, for example, where all vaccination is voluntary, the vaccines included in national programs are offered for free, according to the Public Health Agency of Sweden. 

    Preventative care is more accessible and routine for everyone in countries such as Canada, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and the U.K. with universal healthcare systems, said Dr. Megan Berman of the University of Texas Medical Branch’s Sealy Institute for Vaccine Sciences.

    “In the U.S., our healthcare system is more fragmented, and access to care can depend on insurance or cost,” she said. 

    More limited health care access, decreased institutional trust and anti-vaccine activists’ influence set the United States apart from those other countries, experts said.

    Some of these other countries’ cultural norms favor the collective welfare of others, which means people are more likely to get vaccinated to support the community, Berman said. 

    Anders Hviid, an epidemiologist at Statens Serum Institut in Copenhagen, told The Atlantic that it’s misguided to compare Denmark’s health situation with the U.S. — in part because Danish citizens strongly trust the government to enact policies in the public interest.

    By contrast, as of 2024, fewer than 1 in 3 people in the U.S. over age 15 reported having confidence in the national government, according to data from Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, a group of advanced, industrialized nations. That’s the lowest percentage of any of the countries Ladapo mentioned. 

    “The effectiveness of recommendations depends on faith in the government and scientific body that is making the recommendations,” said Dr. Richard Rupp, of the University of Texas Medical Branch’s Sealy Institute for Vaccine Sciences.

    Without mandates, vaccine education would be even more important, experts say 

    Experts said they believe U.S. vaccination rates would fall if states ended school vaccine mandates. 

    Maintaining high vaccination rates without mandates would require health officials to focus on other policies, interventions and messaging, said Samantha Vanderslott, the leader of the Oxford Vaccine Group’s Vaccines and Society Unit, which researches attitudes and behavior toward vaccines. 

    That could be especially difficult given that the United States’ top health official, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., has a long history of anti-vaccine activism and skepticism about vaccines. 

    That makes the U.S. an outlier, Vanderslott said. 

    “Governments tend to promote/support vaccination as a public health good,” she said. It is unusual for someone with Kennedy’s background to hold a position where he has the power to spread misinformation, encourage vaccine hesitancy and reduce mainstream vaccine research funding and access, Vanderslott said. 

    Most people decide to follow recommendations based on their beliefs about a vaccine’s benefits and their child’s vulnerability to disease, Rupp said. That means countries that educate the public about vaccines and illnesses will have better success with recommendations, he said.

    Ultimately, experts said that just because something worked elsewhere doesn’t mean it will work in the United States. 

    Matt Hitchings, a biostatistics professor at the University of Florida’s College of Public Health and Health Professions, said a vaccine policy’s viability could differ from country to country. Vaccination rates are influenced by a host of factors.

    “If I said that people in the U.K. drink more tea than in the U.S. and have lower rates of certain cancers, would that be convincing evidence that drinking tea reduces cancer risk?” Hitchings said.

    Editor’s note: Google Translate was used throughout the research of this story to translate websites and statements into English.

    RELATED: Why is metal used in vaccines? Is it safe? Here’s what to know about aluminum in vaccines. 

    RELATED: Hepatitis B vaccine Q&A: Why do babies need the shot?

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • What’s at stake over ending vaccine mandates

    [ad_1]

    Florida’s surgeon general has confirmed his office did not conduct any analysis to project how removing school vaccine requirements would impact children in the state. The rollback of some vaccine rules is expected to take effect in the next 90 days. It comes as vaccination rates nationwide are decreasing. Dr. Celine Gounder joins to discuss what’s at stake.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Vaccines and guns: DeSantis talks 2026 legislative agenda

    [ad_1]

    Gov. Ron DeSantis on Monday offered a sneak peek at two priorities for the 2026 legislative session — both of which revamp proposals he unsuccessfully pushed this year: eliminating vaccine mandates and allowing open-carry of firearms.

    During a press conference in Plant City, DeSantis defended his administration’s proposal last week to eliminate from rule and statute all vaccine mandates. State Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo made the announcement, arguing mandates drip “with disdain and slavery.”  

    Ladapo acknowledged to CNN’s Jake Tapper on “State of the Union” over the weekend that the state had conducted no studies before deciding to eliminate vaccine mandates.

    DeSantis on Monday came out strong in defense of Ladapo.

    “He never said he’d take away availability [of vaccines]. Obviously that’s not his position. But I think his position is if you provide information and persuasion, that’s better than coercion.”

    DeSantis, who initially embraced the COVID-19 vaccine and deviated from the federal distribution plan to make sure they were given in Florida first to seniors, fell back on familiar rhetoric about the federal government’s handling of vaccine and mask mandates and government shutdowns, and instead touted Florida’s approach to the pandemic.

    DeSantis alleged that people have grown skeptical of government direction following the pandemic. 

    “When they’re telling you, even if they’re right, I think some people are pushing back against it. It’s going to take time to rebuild trust there. And I think what the surgeon general’s position is, the way you build trust is to provide information and use persuasion rather than try to ostracize people from society if they make a different choice.”

    The DeSantis administration last year proposed legislation (HB 1299) that would have required health care facilities and providers to treat patients regardless of whether they were vaccinated. 

    Although the House agreed to the language, passing HB 1299 by a near-unanimous vote, state Sen. Gayle Harrell, a Republican from Stuart whose late husband had been a physician, warned that the requirement would open doctors to increased liability. Jason Pizzo, a no-party affiliation senator from Hollywood, said requiring a physician to treat unvaccinated patients would run afoul of a 2023 law that allows physicians to withhold care based on conscience.

    The provision was one of two related to vaccines included in the Department of Health (DOH) bill. The initial language would have indefinitely saved from repeal the statutory definition of  “messenger ribonucleic acid vaccine” (mRNA) and along with it a ban on businesses, government entities, and educational institutions from discriminating against people who refuse mRNA vaccines. 

    The Legislature had agreed in 2021 to put the mRNA definition in statute along with the protections for people who wouldn’t take mRNA vaccines, essentially blocking any move in the state from requiring vaccine passports. But the 2021 law expired in four years, or June 2025. The DeSantis administration wanted to extend the mRNA definition and protections indefinitely.

    But the Legislature refused to go along and agreed to keep the definition and subsequent ban in statutes only until June 2027.

    DeSantis criticized the Legislature for not signing off on those provisions in HB 1299.

    Regarding the mNRA definition, DeSantis said: “That’s got to be made permanent. I mean everyone is glad that we did that. Even the far left, I don’t hear them, at least publicly they won’t admit they’re for vaccine passports. It doesn’t make sense. So they need to do that.”

    Regarding requiring physicians and facilities to treat unvaccinated patients the governor said:

    “I get on some levels if someone comes for medical care and  you’re just in private practice. I don’t know if you’re under any obligation to necessarily see everybody — I mean, you’d have to talk to doctors about that. I get there’s a business component to this.

    “But to say that a mom can’t get her daughter in to see a pediatrician because, while they did MMR (measles mumps and rubella) and all the standard vaccines, they didn’t do maybe Hep B or COVID or some of those. To me, that’s discrimination. I mean, that is limiting people’s freedom to do what they think is right for their kids by having these restrictions.”

    Former state senator-turned Lt. Gov. Jay Collins sponsored the companion to HB 1299 in the Senate, SB 1270.

    Gun pitch

    DeSantis on Monday also made a pitch for open carry.

    Florida is one of just a handful of states (and the only red state) that prohibits people from openly carrying firearms in public. 

    DeSantis said that, with Republicans in supermajority control of both chambers of the Florida Legislature, it shouldn’t be a problem getting the bill passed.

    “It’s not something that’s controversial,” he said. “The sky hasn’t fallen in any of those [states which have legalized open carry]. 

    Although the governor called out the House for failing to pass such legislation, in fact it’s been Senate leaders who in recent years have said that they don’t support open carry.

    Senate President Ben Albritton said last year that he’s supported law enforcement his entire life, and stood with them in opposing open carry. He cited opposition from the Florida Sheriffs Association

    However Brevard County Sheriff Wayne Ivey told Luis Valdes, Florida state director of Gun Owners of America, in January that he believes the majority of Florida sheriffs now do support legalizing open carry in Florida.

    Collins also made the case for open carry during Monday’s press conference.

    “We should be an open-carry state,” he said. “I think that we’re on record many times saying that. Hopefully, this is the year. We will continue to fight for those freedoms and those rights, each and every day until we get them all back.”

    Collins never introduced legislation supporting open carry during his three terms as a state senator representing Hillsborough County. 

    Second Amendment advocates have heard DeSantis make similar pleas for the Legislature on open carry in previous years to no success. One such group has called for a special legislative session to get lawmakers on the record about where they stand on this issue.

    “Gun Owners of America is thankful for Gov. DeSantis and Lt. Gov. Jay Collins supporting open carry,” Valdes said.

    “But we feel that the rubber needs to meet the road, and that a special session needs to be called specifically for open carry and gun rights as a whole, so the Republican supermajority can lay bare where they truly stand on gun rights. If they vote down a special session, then gun owners going into 2026 know which lawmakers actually support and defend the Second Amendment.”

    DeSantis again criticized a Florida law passed in 2018 that bans individuals under the age of 21 from purchasing a long gun. The Florida House has passed a measure repealing that law over the past three legislative sessions, but the Senate has never followed suit. 

    DeSantis and Collins spoke at a sporting goods store in Plant City, where they kicked off the press conference by announcing what they are calling a “ Second Amendment tax free holiday” that takes place until the end of the year.

    That means that all purchases of firearms, ammunition, firearm accessories, crossbows, and accessories for bows and crossbows in Florida are tax free up until December 31. Camping and fishing supply purchases are also tax-free until the remainder of the year.

    Subscribe to Orlando Weekly newsletters.

    Follow us: Apple News | Google News | NewsBreak | Reddit | Instagram | Facebook | Bluesky | Or sign up for our RSS Feed

    A city spokesperson declined to confirm whether Orlando would reconsider at this time, citing a pending legal case.

    Miami Beach says the state targeted a rainbow-colored crosswalk at Ocean Drive and 12th Street in the city

    ‘Florida’s strong population growth has collided with limited housing supply, pushing rents beyond what many families can afford.’



    [ad_2]

    Mitch Perry, Florida Phoenix and Christine Sexton, Florida Phoenix
    Source link

  • Live fact-checking Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in Senate committee over 2026 plans, CDC

    [ad_1]

    Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is expected to testify before the U.S. Senate Finance Committe

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Florida Moves To Bring Back Childhood Polio

    [ad_1]

    Florida’s Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo announced on Wednesday that the state would soon be moving to end all vaccine mandates, including those that require children to be vaccinated in order to attend public schools.

    Ladapo, who gained prominence as a COVID skeptic and was appointed by Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis in 2021, compared life-saving shots to slavery. “Every last one of them is wrong and drips with disdain and slavery,” he said at a press conference announcing the move.

    “Who am I as a man standing here to tell you what you should put in your body? Who am I to tell you what your child should put in your body?” he said to raucous applause.

    Florida would become the first state in the nation to not require children to be vaccinated in order to attend school. Currently, Florida requires schoolchildren to be vaccinated against multiple diseases including polio, measles, and hepatitis B.

    Ladapo is framing the push as one centered around freedom. “You want to put whatever different vaccines in your body, God bless you. I hope you make an informed decision,” he said at the press conference. “You don’t want to put whatever vaccines in your body, God bless you. I hope you make an informed decision. That’s how it should be.”

    According to The Washington Post, DeSantis added that the state can end some mandates, but will need approval from the lawmakers for the rest.

    Childhood vaccines save millions of lives around the world each year, which is why schools, a place where infectious diseases can spread in close quarters, around the country require them. Without vaccine prevention, diseases like polio — which can cause respiratory issues, muscle weakness and even death — could spread.

    In recent years, the U.S. has seen a decline in childhood vaccination, as anti-vax activists spread misinformation, particularly about the COVID-19 shot, including claiming getting the shot would make you sick or that it was secretly microchip implantation.

    These beliefs contradict medical consensus: Public health experts say that vaccines help your immune system fight off disease and can prevent you from getting extremely sick, even if you do get infected.

    And the risks of vaccine denial are real. The country is currently in the throes of its worst measles outbreak in more than 30 years. As of July, 14 states had active outbreaks, according to The Associated Press, with another four states having outbreaks that had since ended. So far, hundreds have been infected and three people, including two children, have died. The reemergence of the disease — which had been declared eliminated in the United States as recently as 2000 — has been largely attributed to vaccine refusal.

    Florida’s changes come at a time when public health is in grave danger thanks to the Trump administration. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, has thrown the government’s public health agencies into chaos. Kennedy, who embraces anti-vaccine conspiracies, announced last week that the coronavirus vaccine would only be available to a smaller pool of people. Then, after Susan Monarez, the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, refused to sign off on Kennedy’s unscientific policies — he fired her.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Appeals court blocks COVID vaccine mandate for federal workers

    Appeals court blocks COVID vaccine mandate for federal workers

    [ad_1]

    President Biden’s order that federal employees get vaccinated against COVID-19 was blocked Thursday by a federal appeals court.

    The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans rejected arguments that Mr. Biden, as the nation’s chief executive, has the same authority as the CEO of a private corporation to require that employees be vaccinated.

    The ruling from the full appeals court, 16 full-time judges at the time the case was argued, reversed an earlier ruling by a three-judge 5th Circuit panel that had upheld the vaccination requirement. Judge Andrew Oldham, nominated to the court by then-President Donald Trump, wrote the opinion for a 10-member majority.

    The ruling maintains the status quo for federal employee vaccines. It upholds a preliminary injunction blocking the mandate issued by a federal judge in January 2022. At that point, the administration said nearly 98% of covered employees had been vaccinated.

    And, Oldham noted, with the preliminary injunction arguments done, the case will return to that court for further arguments, when “both sides will have to grapple with the White House’s announcement that the COVID emergency will finally end on May 11, 2023.”

    Opponents of the policy said it was an encroachment on federal workers’ lives that neither the Constitution nor federal statutes authorize.

    Mr. Biden issued an executive order in September 2021 requiring vaccinations for all executive branch agency employees, with exceptions for medical and religious reasons. The requirement kicked in the following November. U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Brown, who was appointed to the District Court for the Southern District of Texas by Trump, issued a nationwide injunction against the requirement the following January.

    The case then went to the 5th Circuit.

    One panel of three 5th Circuit judges refused to immediately block the law.

    But a different panel, after hearing arguments, upheld Mr. Biden’s position. Judges Carl Stewart and James Dennis, both nominated to the court by President Bill Clinton, were in the majority. Judge Rhesa Barksdale, nominated by President George H.W. Bush, dissented, saying the relief the challengers sought does not fall under the Civil Service Reform Act cited by the administration.

    The broader court majority agreed, saying federal law does not preclude court jurisdiction over cases involving “private, irreversible medical decisions made in consultation with private medical professionals outside the federal workplace.”

    A majority of the full court voted to vacate that ruling and reconsider the case. The 16 active judges heard the case on Sept. 13, joined by Barksdale, who is now a senior judge with lighter duties than the full-time members of the court.

    Judge Stephen Higginson, a nominee of former President Barack Obama, wrote the main dissenting opinion. “For the wrong reasons, our court correctly concludes that we do have jurisdiction,” Higginson wrote. “But contrary to a dozen federal courts — and having left a government motion to stay the district court’s injunction pending for more than a year — our court still refuses to say why the President does not have the power to regulate workplace safety for his employees.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link