The Trentonian (Trenton, NJ)

Must employers follow Biden’s vaccine mandates?

- By David A. Lieb and Geoff Mulvihill

Tens of millions of workers across the U.S. are in limbo as federal courts have issued different rulings related to President Joe Biden’s COVID-19 vaccine mandates for larger private companies, certain health care workers and federal government contractor­s.

A federal appeals court panel has allowed a vaccine requiremen­t for employers with 100 or more workers, although Republican attorneys general, business associatio­ns and conservati­ve groups have appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. A vaccine mandate for companies that have contracts with the federal government is on hold nationwide, while a separate mandate for health care employees who work for providers that receive federal Medicare or Medicaid funding has been blocked in half the states.

The courts are responding to lawsuits brought by Republican-led states, conservati­ve groups and some businesses. They argue in part that the vaccine requiremen­ts infringe on states’ rights to regulate public health matters. Numerous legal challenges are pending, some involving groups of states and others filed by states acting alone.

Separate Biden administra­tion vaccine mandates for federal government employees and the military remain in effect, as do mask requiremen­ts for airline passengers and people using public transporta­tion.

The legal cases concern whether the federal government can force employers to require vaccinatio­ns. Courts have generally been accepting of requiremen­ts that businesses and universiti­es have put in place on their own — as well as those imposed by state and local government­s.

More than four-fifths of

adults nationwide already have received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. But Biden contends his various workforce vaccine mandates are an important step to drive up vaccinatio­n rates and contain the virus outbreak, which has killed more than 800,000 people in the U.S.

Opponents have taken a three-tiered approach to challengin­g the requiremen­ts. In lawsuits, they contend the vaccine mandates were imposed without proper public comment, were not authorized by Congress

and infringe on states’ rights to regulate public health matters.

“The reasoning across the cases is basically the same, which is that these statutes don’t give the president or the agency in question the authority to issue the mandates,” said Gregory Magarian, a constituti­onal law professor at Washington University in St. Louis.

The Biden administra­tion contends its rule-making authority is firm and supersedes any state policies prohibitin­g vaccine requiremen­ts. Recent experience shows that such mandates generally prompt people to get vaccinated: By the time a Biden requiremen­t for federal workers to be vaccinated took effect in late November, 92% had received at least their first dose of the shot.

Following is a rundown of some of Biden’s most sweeping vaccine requiremen­ts and the status of the legal fights over them.

LARGE BUSINESS MANDATE

What it would do: Under a rule published by the U.S. Occupation­al Safety and Health Administra­tion on Nov. 5, businesses with 100 or more workers are to require employees to be vaccinated. If they are not, they would need to be tested weekly and wear masks while working, with exceptions for those who work alone or mostly outdoors. The rule was to go into effect Jan. 4. The requiremen­t would affect businesses with a cumulative 84 million employees, and OSHA projected it could save 6,500 lives and prevent 250,000 hospitaliz­ations over six months.

Who’s challengin­g it: The requiremen­t is being challenged by 27 Republican­led state government­s, some conservati­ve and business groups, and some individual businesses. The states mostly filed lawsuits in groups, though Indiana challenged it alone. Their arguments include that it’s the job of states, not the federal government, to deal with public health measures. The Biden administra­tion maintains that the measure is legal. Some labor unions also contested the rule, though not for the same reasons as the Republican­s and business group. They say it doesn’t go far enough to protect workers.

Where it stands: The OSHA rule is allowed to take effect, at least for now. On Dec. 17, a three-judge panel of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals allowed the mandate, reversing a decision by a panel of judges in the New Orleans-based 5th circuit. The legal challenges originally were filed in various U.S. appeals courts. The cases subsequent­ly were consolidat­ed

into the Cincinnati-based 6th circuit, which was selected at random.

What’s next: Republican attorneys general, business associatio­ns and several conservati­ve groups immediatel­y appealed the 6th circuit ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court. In the meantime, OSHA announced that it would not issue citations before Jan. 10 for its vaccinatio­n mandate or before Feb. 9 for its testing requiremen­t to give employers time to adjust.

HEALTH WORKER MANDATE

What it would do: Under a rule published by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid on Nov. 5, a wide range of health care providers that receive federal Medicare or Medicaid funding were to require workers to receive the first dose of a COVID-19 vaccine by Dec. 6 and be fully vaccinated by Jan. 4. The rule would affect more than 17 million workers in about 76,000 health care facilities and home health care providers.

Who’s challengin­g it: The rule was challenged in four separate lawsuits filed by Republican-led states, mostly in groups. Florida and Texas mounted their own challenges. The states argued that there were no grounds for an emergency rule, that CMS had no clear legal authority to issue the mandate and that the rule infringes on states’ responsibi­lities.

Where it stands: The rule is on hold nationally, but a ruling Dec. 15 gives it the possibilit­y of moving ahead in about half the states. A Missouriba­sed federal judge issued a preliminar­y injunction Nov. 29 barring its enforcemen­t in 10 states that had originally sued. The next day, a Louisiana-based federal judge issued a preliminar­y injunction barring enforcemen­t in the rest of the states. But on Dec. 15, that was narrowed to the 14 suing in that court. And on Dec. 15, a federal judge in Texas granted an injunction that applies only to that state. After the decisions, there is a possibilit­y the mandate could be enforced in 25 states where no injunction is in place. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid have not said whether they will pursue that path.

What’s next: The court rulings are being appealed by the Biden administra­tion. On Dec. 16 the administra­tion asked the Supreme Court to block the lower court orders that are keeping the mandate from going into effect in about half of the states. The case filed in Missouri is being considered by the St. Louis-based 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The case filed in Louisiana, which was brought by a coalition of 14 states, is being considered by the 5th Circuit. So far, there’s been no move to consolidat­e the challenges in a single court.

 ?? SUSAN WALSH — THE ASSOCIATED PRESS FILE ?? President Joe Biden talks about the newly approved COVID-19 vaccine for children ages 5-11from the South Court Auditorium on the White House complex in Washington, Wednesday, Nov. 3, 2021. Millions of health care workers across the U.S. were supposed to have their first dose of a COVID-19 vaccine by this coming Monday, Dec. 6 under a mandate from President Joe Biden’s administra­tion. But that has been placed on hold by federal judges.
SUSAN WALSH — THE ASSOCIATED PRESS FILE President Joe Biden talks about the newly approved COVID-19 vaccine for children ages 5-11from the South Court Auditorium on the White House complex in Washington, Wednesday, Nov. 3, 2021. Millions of health care workers across the U.S. were supposed to have their first dose of a COVID-19 vaccine by this coming Monday, Dec. 6 under a mandate from President Joe Biden’s administra­tion. But that has been placed on hold by federal judges.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States