The Mercury News

Conservati­ve justices skeptical of workplace rule

- By Mark Sherman and Jessica Gresko

WASHINGTON >> Fully vaccinated and mostly masked, the Supreme Court’s conservati­ve majority appeared skeptical Friday of the Biden administra­tion’s authority to impose a vaccine-or-testing requiremen­t on the nation’s large employers. The court seemed more open to a separate vaccine mandate for most health care workers.

The arguments in the two cases come at a time of spiking coronaviru­s cases because of the omicron variant, and the decision Friday by seven justices to wear masks for the first time while hearing arguments reflected the new phase of the pandemic.

An eighth justice, Sonia Sotomayor, a diabetic since childhood, didn’t even appear in the courtroom, choosing to remain in her office at the court and take part remotely. Two lawyers, representi­ng Ohio and Louisiana, argued by telephone after recent positive COVID-19 tests, state officials said.

But the COVID circumstan­ces did not appear to outweigh the views of the court’s six conservati­ves that the administra­tion oversteppe­d its authority in its vaccine-or-testing requiremen­t for businesses with at least 100 employees.

“This is something the federal government has never done before,” Chief Justice John Roberts said, casting doubt on the administra­tion’s argument that a half-century-establishe­d law, the Occupation­al Safety and Health Act, confers such broad authority.

Roberts and Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett probably hold the key to the outcome in both cases, as they have been more receptive to state-level vaccine requiremen­ts than the other three conservati­ve justices. Barrett and Kavanaugh also had tough questions for Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, the administra­tion’s top Supreme Court lawyer.

The court’s three liberal justices suggested support for the employer rule. Justice Elena Kagan said officials have shown “quite clearly that no other policy will prevent sickness and death to anywhere like the degree that this one will.”

And Justice Stephen Breyer said he found it “unbelievab­le” that it could be in the “public interest” to put that rule on hold. He said that on Thursday there were some 750,000 new cases in the country and that hospitals are full.

Beginning Monday, unvaccinat­ed employees in big companies are supposed to wear masks at work, unless the court blocks enforcemen­t. But testing requiremen­ts and potential fines for employers don’t kick in until February.

Legal challenges to the policies from Republican­led states and business groups are in their early stages, but the outcome at the high court probably will determine the fate of vaccine requiremen­ts affecting more than 80 million people.

Roberts, Kavanaugh and Barrett seemed to have fewer doubts about the health care vaccine mandate. Kavanaugh said it was a “very unusual situation” that hospitals and health care organizati­ons affected by the regulation were “not here complainin­g” about the rule but instead support it. “What are we to make of that?” he asked.

The second regulation is a mandate that would apply to virtually all health care staff in the country. It covers health care providers that receive federal Medicare or Medicaid funding, potentiall­y affecting 76,000 health care facilities as well as home health care providers.

The rule has medical and religious exemptions.

Decisions by federal appeals courts in New Orleans and St. Louis have blocked the mandate in about half the states. The administra­tion has said it is taking steps to enforce it in the rest.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States