Supreme Court rejects COVID-19 vaccine mandates for federal workers, military
OAN’s Brooke Mallory
11:56 AM – Monday, December 11, 2023
A number of rulings pertaining to the Biden administration’s COVID-19 vaccination requirements for federal employees and military personnel were overturned by the Supreme Court, preventing the decisions from becoming precedent-setting in the future.
After declaring the disagreements moot, the justices agreed to throw out the lower decisions on Monday, clearing the way for any future vaccination requirements.
The lawsuits had resulted in differing rulings from the courts, but the vaccination mandates were repealed before the Supreme Court could comment on any of the appeals. The judges had to decide what legal remedy was suitable in light of the circumstances.
Regarding the federal employee requirement, two appeals courts reached different decisions regarding whether federal workers may file a constitutional challenge in court or whether they have to go through the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) first.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit determined in March that the MSPB was mandated by federal law in a case that was brought by a civilian employee of the Navy. A few days later, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit rendered an opposing ruling in support of several plaintiffs, including a group called “Feds for Medical Freedom.”
Earlier in May, Biden revoked the executive order that had instituted the federal employee vaccination mandate, prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in either case.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit then imposed an injunction in the military vaccination mandate case, stopping the Air Force from enforcing the obligation against those who request religious exemptions.
A few weeks later, Congress enacted a law mandating that Biden’s defense secretary withdraw the order prior to the Supreme Court hearing any appeals.
The government pushed the justices in all three cases to grant a “Munsingwear vacatur,” which overturns a lower court decision in certain cases when it is deemed irrelevant.
The plaintiffs who prevailed in the cases and another government employee agreed, and the Navy employee who had lost in the lower court petitioned the Supreme Court to uphold their decisions.
The plaintiffs said that since the Biden administration had willingly brought forth its own case, Munsingwear vacatur was inapplicable. One group also pointed out that the vaccination obligation persisted even though other pandemic-era policies had been removed months earlier.
“Petitioners ask this Court to endorse a ‘heads we win, tails you get vacated’ version of Munsingwear, where they can litigate to the hilt in both district and circuit court and—only if they lose—then decline to seek substantive review from this Court and instead moot the case and ask this Court to erase the circuit court loss from the books,” said the plaintiffs’ attorney.
Ketanji Brown Jackson, the judge in two of the three cases, said that those who have consistently resisted the legal tactic dissented from the court’s ruling. In the third case, Jackson expressed that while she would personally disagree, she would grant the administration’s motion in accordance with established Supreme Court precedent.
“In my view, the party seeking vacatur has not established equitable entitlement to that remedy,” Jackson wrote.
The Biden administration claimed that the president’s decision to terminate the federal employee mandate was a result of evolving public health conditions.
“The President revoked EO 14,043 because of the waning of the pandemic, not any effort to evade judicial review or gain litigation advantage,” the Justice Department said in the court filings.
Stay informed! Receive breaking news blasts directly to your inbox for free. Subscribe here. https://www.oann.com/alerts
Senior litigation counsel at the New Civil Liberties Alliance says the State Department’s Global Engagement Center is using taxpayer fund to shut down conservative news outlets. One America’s John Hines has more from Washington.
As tensions continue to rise in the Middle East over the Israel Hamas War.
After severe storms and tornadoes kill at least six people in Central Tennessee.
with Thaddeus Cleveland
Microsoft and the AFL-CIO union federation said they had struck a deal whereby the software giant will remain neutral in efforts by unions to encourage workers to become members.
Amazon.com asked a federal court to dismiss a U.S. government antitrust lawsuit which accuses the company of using illegal strategies to boost profits at its online retail empire.
More than 10 million people have signed up for X in December, X CEO Linda Yaccarino said in a post on the social media platform.
Alphabet shares ended 5.3% higher on Thursday as Wall Street cheered the launch of Gemini.
rnrn
Does the Supreme Court’s ruling settle the question of the constitutionality of the Biden administration’s vaccination requirements for federal employees and military personnel?
Diciary Department said in a statement.
The Supreme Court’s decision will have implications for future cases involving vaccine mandates and individual rights. It clarifies that lower court decisions on such matters can be overturned if they become irrelevant due to changes in circumstances or if the issue at hand is resolved through other means, such as executive orders or legislation.
However, the ruling does not settle the question of whether the Biden administration’s vaccination requirements for federal employees and military personnel are constitutional. It simply prevents the lower court decisions from setting a precedent for future cases.
The debate over vaccine mandates has been contentious, with arguments on both sides. Supporters argue that such mandates are necessary to protect public health and control the spread of COVID-19. They believe that requiring individuals to be vaccinated is a reasonable measure to prevent the further spread of the virus and ensure the safety of the community.
Opponents, on the other hand, argue that vaccine mandates infringe upon individual rights and personal autonomy. They believe that individuals should have the right to make their own decisions regarding their health and whether to receive a vaccine. They also express concerns about potential side effects or long-term health risks associated with the vaccines.
This debate has played out in various legal challenges across the country, with different courts reaching different conclusions. The Supreme Court’s decision to overturn these lower court rulings adds to the complexity of the issue and leaves the question of vaccine mandates unresolved.
As the COVID-19 pandemic continues to evolve, governments and policymakers will face ongoing challenges in balancing public health concerns with individual rights and freedoms. The Supreme Court’s decision highlights the need for clear and consistent guidance on vaccine mandates, as well as the importance of addressing these issues through established legal processes.
Ultimately, finding a balance between protecting public health and respecting individual rights will require thoughtful and nuanced discussions, informed by scientific evidence and legal expertise. It is crucial for policymakers to consider the potential impact of their decisions on public health, individual freedoms, and the overall well-being of society.
The Supreme Court’s recent decision serves as a reminder of the complexities surrounding vaccine mandates and the need for careful consideration of these issues in order to navigate the challenges posed by the ongoing pandemic.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
Now loading...