This article is a companion piece to today’s Morning Wire Afternoon Update. To listen to the podcast version, click <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/podcasts/morning-wire" target="_blank" rel="noopener">here</a>.
Man Driving U-Haul Truck Allegedly Mows Down People On NYC Sidewalk
A man driving a U-Haul truck allegedly struck and badly injured several people in Brooklyn Monday before leading police on a several-mile pursuit. According to fire department officials, at least eight people were hurt at two locations, including two people who are in critical condition. Officials say they do not have a motive for the attack at this time, but say it was not an accident. NYPD&#8217;s bomb squad was called to the scene to check the truck for possible explosives.
Americans Told To Leave Russia
The U.S. State Department warned all American citizens to leave Russia without delay on Monday, issuing the highest level of warning possible. It’s not the first time the State Department has warned citizens to leave Russia since it began its invasion, but citizens were told “do not” travel to the eastern European country, citing “the potential for harassment and the singling out of U.S. citizens for detention.”
Turkey Issues Arrest Warrants For Building Contractors
On Monday, the government of Turkey issued at least 100 arrest warrants for building contractors. The contractors, they allege, are to blame for faulty building design and safety mechanisms, which allowed last week’s devastating earthquakes to kill at least 33,000 individuals.
Is East Palestine, Ohio, Safe?
While residents in East Palestine, Ohio, have been told it’s safe to return home after an evacuation order, many are worried about continued threats to their health. A Norfolk Southern train carrying harmful industrial chemicals derailed on February 3, and the company informed the EPA that dangerous chemicals were on board — prompting authorities to order an evacuation of the area. Five days later, residents were told they could return home, but many are hesitant amid new reports of how dangerous the emitted chemicals could be.
 Cali Judge Stops L.A. Plan That Would Have Cut Down 13,000 Trees 
A state judge in California has halted a plan by the city of Los Angeles to cut down more than 13,000 trees as part of the city’s effort to expand its sidewalks. The judge in the ruling called the proposal “fundamentally flawed.”
 NJ School District Superintendent Resigns After Tragic 14-Year-Old Suicide 
The superintendent at Central Regional School District in Ocean County, New Jersey, has resigned following the tragic suicide of a 14-year-old girl in the school district. The teen took her life just days after a viral TikTok video showed four other teenagers brutally attacking her. Parents and other community members say the video epitomized the violent, dangerous atmosphere in schools. The family of the deceased girl has accused the school district of failing to take prompt action.
Mars Wrigley Fined By OSHA After Employees Fall Into Chocolate Vat
Mars Wrigley has been fined $14,500 by OSHA after two workers fell into a vat of chocolate last June. The federal agency alleged that the candy company did not provide its workers with adequate training. Both employees were rescued by local firefighters who drilled a hole in the bottom of the tank and pulled them out.
To listen to the audio version of this podcast, <a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/morning-wire/id1576594336" target="_blank" rel="noopener">click here</a>. And for more in-depth discussion of the biggest stories of the day, listen to the latest full episode of Morning Wire every morning.

Monday

Monday Afternoon Update: Questions Swirl About Ohio Train Explosion, M&M’s Maker Fined By OSHA,  Americans Told To Leave Russia

Monday Afternoon Update: Questions Swirl About Ohio Train Explosion, M&M's Maker Fined By OSHA,  Americans Told To Leave Russia

Morning Wire

New Jersey

Occupational Health And Safety Administration (OSHA)

Ohio

Podcast

Russia

A <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/south-carolina">South Carolina</a> man who vanished two months ago was apparently ground up in a shredding machine at the recycling plant where he worked, authorities said Wednesday.
Duncan Alexander Burrell Gordon, 20, was reported missing May 5 after having last been seen working the overnight shift at Industrial Recycling &amp; Recovery in Greer, <a href="https://www.wspa.com/news/local-news/missing-mans-remains-found-in-spartanburg-co-plant/">WSPA</a> reported. Now, minute particles found at the machine have been confirmed to be Gordon’s remains.
&#8220;I can confirm the material is consistent with human fat, microscopically minute particles of skin, and small pieces of bone,&#8221; Spartanburg County Coroner Rusty Clevenger said in a statement.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Missing worker&#39;s remains found in plastic recycling machine at South Carolina plant <a href="https://t.co/TIAlJWup0j">https://t.co/TIAlJWup0j</a> <a href="https://t.co/rGZ3WNE7yO">pic.twitter.com/rGZ3WNE7yO</a>
&mdash; FOX8 WGHP (@myfox8) <a href="https://twitter.com/myfox8/status/1545055165337677827?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 7, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
The coroner&#8217;s office was first contacted on June 10, when investigators from the Spartanburg County Sheriff’s Office discovered his DNA there. The Spartanburg County Coroner’s Office said the machine was inspected at least four times after Gordon’s disappearance, including by plant officials, a cadaver dog, and Gordon’s father, Mike Gordon, who is a supervisor at the plant.
Although evidence was found during the inspections, the machine was restarted afterward and processed around 60,000 pounds of plastic in the two months since Gordon’s disappearance.
During one of the inspections, a detective found what appeared to be human remains under a conveyor belt, according to <a href="https://www.thestate.com/news/local/article263243493.html">TheState.com</a>. When the remains tested positive for human blood, authorities contacted Clevenger&#8217;s office, which confirmed their worst fears.
Another inspection turned up two ounces of human skin, bone, and fat, the coroner’s office said. Gordon was working atop the machine when he vanished. The room includes several machines and it is noisy, according to <a href="https://www.heraldonline.com/news/state/south-carolina/article263243493.html">HeraldOnline.com</a>.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is investigating to determine if any safety violations may have contributed to the tragic accident. An OSHA spokesperson told <a href="https://www.thestate.com/news/local/article263243493.html">TheState.com</a> that the review could take two months. Clevenger said his office cannot issue a death certificate without a body, but added that state law provides another remedy for families to establish death for closure and insurance purposes.
Industrial Recovery &amp; Recycling has processed more than “1 billion pounds of plastic material for a growing list of blue-chip manufacturing companies,” <a href="https://irr-plastics.com/">according to</a> its website.

Waste Sorting Centre In Taiyuan

Horror As Missing Man’s Remains Found In Shredder At Recycling Plant

Man Missing Since May Fell Into Shredder At Recycling Plant, Officials Determine

Death

Environment

South Carolina

The Biden administration announced Tuesday it is withdrawing an emergency order mandating large employers vaccinate or regularly test their workers for COVID-19, but instead will be pushing for a permanent rule.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) will formally withdraw the order on Wednesday, according to a draft of the <a href="https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2022-01532.pdf">memo</a> to be published in the Federal Register. The agency is not dropping the rule entirely, however, planning to keep the order as a &#8220;proposed rule.&#8221; The original order would have impacted some 85 million Americans.
“OSHA is withdrawing the November 5, 2021, emergency temporary standard (ETS) which was issued to protect unvaccinated employees of large employers (100 or more employees) from the risk of contracting COVID–19 by strongly encouraging vaccination,” the memo <a href="https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2022-01532.pdf">said</a>. The agency continued to pressure companies to enact their own forced vaccination and testing policies.
“Although OSHA is withdrawing the Vaccination and Testing ETS as an enforceable emergency temporary standard, OSHA is not withdrawing the ETS to the extent that it serves as a proposed rule under section 6(c)(3) of the Act, and this action does not affect the ETS’s status as a proposal under section 6(b) of the Act or otherwise affect the status of the notice-and-comment rulemaking commenced by the Vaccination and Testing ETS. See 29 U.S.C. 655(c)(3),” the memo said, signaling the agency&#8217;s intent to revise and remake the rule.
&#8220;OSHA is evaluating the record and the evolving course of the pandemic. OSHA has made no determinations at this time about when or if it will finalize a Vaccination and Testing rule. The agency intends to work expeditiously to issue a final standard that will protect healthcare workers from COVID-19 hazards,&#8221; a spokesperson for the Labor Department added.
The Supreme Court <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/supreme-court-strikes-massive-blow-against-bidens-employer-mandate">ruled</a> on January 13 to stay President Joe Biden’s order at least until the Sixth Circuit, which was picked to consolidate numerous legal challenges to the rule from across the country, can reach a decision on the case. The Daily Wire filed the first lawsuit in the Sixth Circuit hours after the order was released on November 4 and appealed the case to the Supreme Court the next month following the Sixth Circuit&#8217;s decision to lift a stay on the OSHA order.
&#8220;At question here isn’t whether or not the government has the right to enforce rules on its own employees. It’s whether or not unelected bureaucrats at OSHA have the right to coerce businesses into forcing PRIVATE employees to follow rules the government never had the right to impose in the first place,&#8221; Daily Wire CEO Jeremy Boreing <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/were-taking-our-lawsuit-against-biden-to-the-supreme-court">said</a> at the time. &#8220;At the end of the day, the government has the POWER to make us all comply, but they do not have the RIGHT to make us all comply. That’s why we must keep fighting.&#8221;
After filing its lawsuit in November, The Daily Wire launched a <a href="https://lp.dailywire.com/osha-petition/">petition</a> against Biden&#8217;s order that <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/daily-wires-do-not-comply-petition-hits-one-million-signatures-after-scotus-agrees-to-hear-vax-order-case">gained</a> over one million signatures before Christmas and continues to accept new signatures.
The Supreme Court’s decision to hear oral arguments in the case was rare and emphasizes the sweeping impact Biden’s order could have if implemented. The last time the Supreme Court granted a motion to hear oral arguments over a stay was in 1970 in the case of Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe. Sixth Circuit Chief Judge Jeffrey Sutton pointed out in a December dissent that the scope of Biden’s vaccine mandate is unprecedented in the history of the United States. Sutton <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/sixth-circuit-chief-tears-apart-bidens-covid-mandate-for-private-companies-as-court-denies-full-hearing">wrote</a>:
<blockquote>It is one thing to tell a worker to don a mask at the start of a hazard-filled shift and doff it at the end. It is quite another to tell a worker to vaccinate on the basis of a risk that exists whether he is on the clock or off and that amounts to a medical procedure that cannot be removed at the end of the shift. Confirming the point, the Secretary of Labor has never imposed a vaccine mandate or for that matter a vaccinate-or-test mandate on American workers. The [Occupational Safety and Health Act] does not clearly give the Secretary power to regulate all health risks and all new health hazards, largely through off-site medical procedures, so long as the individual goes to work and may face the hazard in the course of the workday.</blockquote>
This article has been updated to include a statement from the U.S. Labor Department.

Joe Biden

OSHA Signals Continued Pursuit Of Vaccine Mandate Despite Supreme Court Loss

Supreme Court

Vaccine Mandate

Today is a day of celebration. 
We said DO NOT COMPLY. You DID NOT COMPLY. In fact, over a million of you signed our petition saying as much. And today, we kicked the government’s ass. 
Today, the Supreme Court has decided, by a huge majority of 6 to 3, to stay the Biden Administration’s unconstitutional private employer vaccine mandate. 
It’s a tremendous day for the American people and for the founding idea that this is a limited government of enumerated powers, which exists to protect, not erode, the God-given freedoms of the people.
More, the court’s stay will prevail EVEN IF the 6th Circuit rules in favor of the Biden Administration at some future date. 
This spells all but certain doom for OSHA’s unimaginable overreach into the private health decisions of some 85 million Americans whose only crime is having a job at a company with more than 100 employees. 
According to the order of the court, and basic common sense, “Although COVID-19 is a risk that occurs in many workplaces, it is not an OCCUPATIONAL hazard in most. COVID-19 can and does spread at home, in schools, during sporting events, and everywhere else that people gather. That kind of universal risk is no different from the day-to-day dangers that all face from crime, air pollution, or any number of communicable diseases. 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.”
And how. 
The order further states, “Although Congress has indisputably given OSHA the power to regulate occupational dangers, it has not given that agency the power to regulate public health more broadly. Requiring the vaccination of 84 million Americans, selected simply because they work for employers with more than 100 employees, certainly falls in the latter category.”
What does all of that mean? It means we won. It means we’re still free. 
It means the complainants, beginning with The Daily Wire, who brought the first in the nation lawsuit against the mandate, and the nearly 60 others, including the Federation of Independent Business and a coalition of states who were invited to give oral arguments before the court, have prevailed in our application for injunctive relief. 
And it means that, for today, and very likely forever, Joe Biden’s attempt to turn private employers into the enforcement arm of his federal vaccination scheme will not be implemented.
The scope of just how badly we beat the bastards is hard to overemphasize. 
Writing in concurrence with the order, Justices Gorsuch, Thomas, and Alito point out that, had OSHA’s rule been allowed to stand, “the law would afford [OSHA] almost unlimited discretion…”
Says the concurring opinion, “The question before us is not how to respond to the pandemic, but who holds the power to do so. The answer is clear: Under the law as it stands today, that power rests with the States and Congress, not OSHA.”
If the court were to grant such emergency powers, say the Justices, “declaration of emergencies would never end and the liberties our Constitution’s separation of powers seeks to preserve would amount to little.”
Total victory, not just for the millions of Americans who have exercised their right not to be vaccinated, but the millions more who oppose the tyranny of this mandate regardless of their vaccine status. 
And utter defeat for the government, which sought to enforce its will on the American people – literally INTO the American people – at threat of financial ruin just because they’re convinced they know better than you. 
Drink their tears, my friends, and enjoy your freedom. By the grace of God, you still have it.

ENOUGH-210107-CourtStrikesDown-FINAL

We Said Do Not Comply. We Won.

The Supreme Court on Thursday blocked the Biden administration’s vaccine mandate for employers with at least 100 employees.
On November 4, the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) ordered all companies with at least 100 employees to ensure that they were either vaccinated against COVID-19 or tested weekly. The order was immediately met with opposition, including from The Daily Wire, which was the first business to sue the Biden administration in the Sixth Circuit. 
This was the first time since 1970 that the Supreme Court heard a case over a stay, and the majority of justices signaled their opposition to the rule during hearings last Friday. 
On Thursday, the Supreme Court blocked the vaccine mandate in a 6-3 decision, with all conservative justices concurring, and the three liberal justices dissenting.   
Read the <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21a244_hgci.pdf">decision</a> and the majority opinion below:
<blockquote>The Secretary of Labor, acting through the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, recently enacted a vaccine mandate for much of the Nation’s work force. The mandate, which employers must enforce, applies to roughly 84 million workers, covering virtually all employers with at least 100 employees. It requires that covered workers receive a COVID–19 vaccine, and it pre-empts contrary state laws. The only exception is for workers who obtain a medical test each week at their own expense and on their own time, and also wear a mask each workday. OSHA has never before imposed such a mandate. Nor has Congress. Indeed, although Congress has enacted significant legislation addressing the COVID–19 pandemic, it has declined to enact any measure similar to what OSHA has promulgated here. 
Many States, businesses, and nonprofit organizations challenged OSHA’s rule in Courts of Appeals across the country. The Fifth Circuit initially entered a stay. But when the cases were consolidated before the Sixth Circuit, that court lifted the stay and allowed OSHA’s rule to take effect. Applicants now seek emergency relief from this Court, arguing that OSHA’s mandate exceeds its statutory authority and is otherwise unlawful. Agreeing that applicants are likely to prevail, we grant their applications and stay the rule.
Congress enacted the Occupational Safety and Health Act in 1970. 84 Stat. 1590, 29 U. S. C. §651 et seq. The Act created the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), which is part of the Department of Labor and under the supervision of its Secretary. As its name suggests, OSHA is tasked with ensuring occupational safety— that is, “safe and healthful working conditions.” §651(b). It does so by enforcing occupational safety and health standards promulgated by the Secretary. §655(b). Such standards must be “reasonably necessary or appropriate to provide safe or healthful employment.” §652(8) (emphasis added). They must also be developed using a rigorous process that includes notice, comment, and an opportunity for a public hearing. §655(b). 
The Act contains an exception to those ordinary noticeand-comment procedures for “emergency temporary standards.” §655(c)(1). Such standards may “take immediate effect upon publication in the Federal Register.” Ibid. They are permissible, however, only in the narrowest of circumstances: the Secretary must show (1) “that employees are exposed to grave danger from exposure to substances or agents determined to be toxic or physically harmful or from new hazards,” and (2) that the “emergency standard is necessary to protect employees from such danger.” Ibid. Prior to the emergence of COVID–19, the Secretary had used this power just nine times before (and never to issue a rule as broad as this one). Of those nine emergency rules, six were challenged in court, and only one of those was upheld in full. See BST Holdings, L.L.C. v. Occupational Safety and Health Admin., 17 F. 4th 604, 609 (CA5 2021). 
On September 9, 2021, President Biden announced “a new plan to require more Americans to be vaccinated.” Remarks on the COVID–19 Response and National Vaccination Efforts, 2021 Daily Comp. of Pres. Doc. 775, p. 2. As part of that plan, the President said that the Department of Labor would issue an emergency rule requiring all employers with at least 100 employees “to ensure their workforces are fully vaccinated or show a negative test at least once a week.” Ibid. The purpose of the rule was to increase vaccination rates at “businesses all across America.” Ibid. In tandem with other planned regulations, the administration’s goal was to impose “vaccine requirements” on “about 100 million Americans, two-thirds of all workers.” Id., at 3. 
After a 2-month delay, the Secretary of Labor issued the promised emergency standard. 86 Fed. Reg. 61402 (2021). Consistent with President Biden’s announcement, the rule applies to all who work for employers with 100 or more employees. There are narrow exemptions for employees who work remotely “100 percent of the time” or who “work exclusively outdoors,” but those exemptions are largely illusory. Id., at 61460. The Secretary has estimated, for example, that only nine percent of landscapers and groundskeepers qualify as working exclusively outside. Id., at 61461. The regulation otherwise operates as a blunt instrument. It draws no distinctions based on industry or risk of exposure to COVID–19. Thus, most lifeguards and linemen face the same regulations as do medics and meatpackers. OSHA estimates that 84.2 million employees are subject to its mandate. Id., at 61467. 
Covered employers must “develop, implement, and enforce a mandatory COVID–19 vaccination policy.” Id., at 61402. The employer must verify the vaccination status of each employee and maintain proof of it. Id., at 61552. The mandate does contain an “exception” for employers that require unvaccinated workers to “undergo [weekly] COVID– 19 testing and wear a face covering at work in lieu of vaccination.” Id., at 61402. But employers are not required to offer this option, and the emergency regulation purports to pre-empt state laws to the contrary. Id., at 61437. Unvaccinated employees who do not comply with OSHA’s rule must be “removed from the workplace.” Id., at 61532. And employers who commit violations face hefty fines: up to $13,653 for a standard violation, and up to $136,532 for a willful one. 29 CFR §1903.15(d) (2021). 
OSHA published its vaccine mandate on November 5, 2021. Scores of parties—including States, businesses, trade groups, and nonprofit organizations—filed petitions for review, with at least one petition arriving in each regional Court of Appeals. The cases were consolidated in the Sixth Circuit, which was selected at random pursuant to 28 U. S. C. §2112(a). 
Prior to consolidation, however, the Fifth Circuit stayed OSHA’s rule pending further judicial review. BST Holdings, 17 F. 4th 604. It held that the mandate likely exceeded OSHA’s statutory authority, raised separation-ofpowers concerns in the absence of a clear delegation from Congress, and was not properly tailored to the risks facing different types of workers and workplaces. 
When the consolidated cases arrived at the Sixth Circuit, two things happened. First, many of the petitioners—nearly 60 in all—requested initial hearing en banc. Second, OSHA asked the Court of Appeals to vacate the Fifth Circuit’s existing stay. The Sixth Circuit denied the request for initial hearing en banc by an evenly divided 8-to-8 vote. In re MCP No. 165, 20 F. 4th 264 (2021). Chief Judge Sutton dissented, joined by seven of his colleagues. He reasoned that the Secretary’s “broad assertions of administrative power demand unmistakable legislative support,” which he found lacking. Id., at 268. A three-judge panel then dissolved the Fifth Circuit’s stay, holding that OSHA’s mandate was likely consistent with the agency’s statutory and constitutional authority. See In re MCP No. 165, 2021 WL 5989357, ___ F. 4th ___ (CA6 2021). Judge Larsen dissented. 
Various parties then filed applications in this Court requesting that we stay OSHA’s emergency standard. We consolidated two of those applications—one from the National Federation of Independent Business, and one from a coalition of States—and heard expedited argument on January 7, 2022. 
The Sixth Circuit concluded that a stay of the rule was not justified. We disagree. 
Applicants are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that the Secretary lacked authority to impose the mandate. Administrative agencies are creatures of statute. They accordingly possess only the authority that Congress has provided. The Secretary has ordered 84 million Americans to either obtain a COVID–19 vaccine or undergo weekly medical testing at their own expense. This is no “everyday exercise of federal power.” In re MCP No. 165, 20 F. 4th, at 272 (Sutton, C. J., dissenting). It is instead a significant encroachment into the lives—and health—of a vast number of employees. “We expect Congress to speak clearly when authorizing an agency to exercise powers of vast economic and political significance.” Alabama Assn. of Realtors v. Department of Health and Human Servs., 594 U. S. ___, ___ (2021) (per curiam) (slip op., at 6) (internal quotation marks omitted). There can be little doubt that OSHA’s mandate qualifies as an exercise of such authority. 
The question, then, is whether the Act plainly authorizes the Secretary’s mandate. It does not. The Act empowers the Secretary to set workplace safety standards, not broad public health measures. See 29 U. S. C. §655(b) (directing the Secretary to set “occupational safety and health standards” (emphasis added)); §655(c)(1) (authorizing the Secretary to impose emergency temporary standards necessary to protect “employees” from grave danger in the workplace). Confirming the point, the Act’s provisions typically speak to hazards that employees face at work. See, e.g., §§651, 653, 657. And no provision of the Act addresses public health more generally, which falls outside of OSHA’s sphere of expertise. 
The dissent protests that we are imposing “a limit found no place in the governing statute.” Post, at 7 (joint opinion of BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ.). Not so. It is the text of the agency’s Organic Act that repeatedly makes clear that OSHA is charged with regulating “occupational” hazards and the safety and health of “employees.” See, e.g., 29 U. S. C. §§652(8), 654(a)(2), 655(b)–(c). 
The Solicitor General does not dispute that OSHA is limited to regulating “work-related dangers.” Response Brief for OSHA in No. 21A244 etc., p. 45 (OSHA Response). She instead argues that the risk of contracting COVID–19 qualifies as such a danger. We cannot agree. Although COVID– 19 is a risk that occurs in many workplaces, it is not an occupational hazard in most. COVID–19 can and does spread at home, in schools, during sporting events, and everywhere else that people gather. That kind of universal risk is no different from the day-to-day dangers that all face from crime, air pollution, or any number of communicable diseases. 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 dissent contends that OSHA’s mandate is comparable to a fire or sanitation regulation imposed by the agency. See post, at 7–9. But a vaccine mandate is strikingly unlike the workplace regulations that OSHA has typically imposed. A vaccination, after all, “cannot be undone at the end of the workday.” In re MCP No. 165, 20 F. 4th, at 274 (Sutton, C. J., dissenting). Contrary to the dissent’s contention, imposing a vaccine mandate on 84 million Americans in response to a worldwide pandemic is simply not “part of what the agency was built for.” Post, at 10. 
That is not to say OSHA lacks authority to regulate occupation-specific risks related to COVID–19. Where the virus poses a special danger because of the particular features of an employee’s job or workplace, targeted regulations are plainly permissible. We do not doubt, for example, that OSHA could regulate researchers who work with the COVID–19 virus. So too could OSHA regulate risks associated with working in particularly crowded or cramped environments. But the danger present in such workplaces differs in both degree and kind from the everyday risk of contracting COVID–19 that all face. OSHA’s indiscriminate approach fails to account for this crucial distinction— between occupational risk and risk more generally—and accordingly the mandate takes on the character of a general public health measure, rather than an “occupational safety or health standard.” 29 U. S. C. §655(b) (emphasis added). 
In looking for legislative support for the vaccine mandate, the dissent turns to the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, Pub. L. 117–2, 135 Stat. 4. See post, at 8. That legislation, signed into law on March 11, 2021, of course said nothing about OSHA’s vaccine mandate, which was not announced until six months later. In fact, the most noteworthy action concerning the vaccine mandate by either House of Congress has been a majority vote of the Senate disapproving the regulation on December 8, 2021. S. J. Res. 29, 117th Cong., 1st Sess. (2021). 
It is telling that OSHA, in its half century of existence, has never before adopted a broad public health regulation of this kind—addressing a threat that is untethered, in any causal sense, from the workplace. This “lack of historical precedent,” coupled with the breadth of authority that the Secretary now claims, is a “telling indication” that the mandate extends beyond the agency’s legitimate reach. Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Bd., 561 U. S. 477, 505 (2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). 
The equities do not justify withholding interim relief. We are told by the States and the employers that OSHA’s mandate will force them to incur billions of dollars in unrecoverable compliance costs and will cause hundreds of thousands of employees to leave their jobs. See Application in No. 21A244, pp. 25–32; Application in No. 21A247, pp. 32– 33; see also 86 Fed. Reg. 61475. For its part, the Federal Government says that the mandate will save over 6,500 lives and prevent hundreds of thousands of hospitalizations. OSHA Response 83; see also 86 Fed. Reg. 61408. 
It is not our role to weigh such tradeoffs. In our system of government, that is the responsibility of those chosen by the people through democratic processes. Although Congress has indisputably given OSHA the power to regulate occupational dangers, it has not given that agency the power to regulate public health more broadly. Requiring the vaccination of 84 million Americans, selected simply because they work for employers with more than 100 employees, certainly falls in the latter category.
The applications for stays presented to JUSTICE KAVANAUGH and by him referred to the Court are granted. 
OSHA’s COVID–19 Vaccination and Testing; Emergency Temporary Standard, 86 Fed. Reg. 61402, is stayed pending disposition of the applicants’ petitions for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and disposition of the applicants’ petitions for writs of certiorari, if such writs are timely sought. Should the petitions for writs of certiorari be denied, this order shall terminate automatically. In the event the petitions for writs of certiorari are granted, the order shall terminate upon the sending down of the judgment of this Court. 
It is so ordered. </blockquote>

READ IT: Supreme Court’s Massive Blow Against Biden’s Vax Mandate

Biden Administration

On Friday, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments against two similar but not congruent COVID-19 mandates under the Biden administration, one dealing with private-sector employees and the other focused on healthcare workers more specifically, but the differences between the two could be enough for the court to rule one mandate is constitutional while the other is not.
The first mandate being challenged is a rule enforced by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration which imposes a &#8220;vaccine-or-test mandate.&#8221; That mandate requires all employers with 100 or more employees to either receive the COVID-19 vaccine or undergo weekly testing. That case is being challenged by <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/supreme-court-oral-arguments-begin-in-the-daily-wires-challenge-against-bidens-vaccine-mandate">The Daily Wire</a> and several other petitioners.  The other case that was argued before the court on Friday was enacted through the Department of Health and Human Services. That mandate requires all health care workers at facilities that participate in the Medicare and Medicaid programs to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19, unless they are eligible for a medical or religious exemption, as reported by <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/01/biden-vaccine-policies-face-supreme-court-test-amid-nationwide-covid-19-surge/">SCOTUS Blog</a>.
While the two cases both deal with the COVID-19 vaccine and federal power, a constitutional legal expert told The Daily Wire that the questions asked by the justices during each hearing were &#8220;markedly different,&#8221; possibly indicating the court will rule in favor of challengers to the OSHA mandate.
&#8220;The tenor and questions of the conservative justices were markedly different on the second argument dealing with health care facilities,&#8221; George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley told The Daily Wire. &#8220;Notably, the conservative justices were far more restrained in the second case in their questions.&#8221;
&#8220;The nexus between the mandate and health regulations appeared more discernible for key members like Chief Justice [John] Roberts,&#8221; he added. &#8220;Indeed, conservative justices pressed on standing questions, which is often a sign that some might be looking for an exit ramp.&#8221;
That opinion was <a href="https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/biden-covid-vaccine-mandates-supreme-court-01-07-22/index.html">shared</a> by CNN as well, which noted that conservative justices focused on questioning different portions of the HHS mandate:
<article id="h_67e53b061ca22d24e43eb86b2e6b1146" class="sc-bwzfXH sc-eXEjpC iGQwpp" data-position="post-position-2">
<div class="sc-bdVaJa post-content-rendered render-stellar-contentstyles__Content-sc-9v7nwy-0 daEDKg">
<blockquote>
Justice Kavanaugh focused in on how the facilities that were the main targets of the regulations were not before the court challenging the requirement, suggested that that the red states that had brought the lawsuits were not the proper defendants for getting the mandate blocked. 
Chief Justice John Roberts, meanwhile, appeared sympathetic to the argument that the Constitution&#8217;s Spending Clause gives the federal government authority in the health care worker case that it doesn&#8217;t have with the employer mandate. The administration is seeking to implement the health care worker mandate as a condition for their facilities to receive federal health care funding.
</blockquote>
But, oral arguments for the OSHA mandate indicated that the conservatives were far more skeptical of the legality of emergency rule.
&#8220;The OSHA argument showed a more active and skeptical bench,&#8221; Turley explained to The Daily Wire.
For example, Justice Amy Coney Barrett questioned when the &#8220;emergency&#8221; would end while Justice Brett Kavanaugh pressured pro-OSHA attorneys as to whether or not Congress actually gave OSHA the proper authority to enact such an emergency rule for vaccines at all.
</div>
Turley shied away from claiming anything definitive as to how the court will rule, but he offered some hope for private-sector workers and plaintiffs challenging the OSHA ruling.
&#8220;There is more reason for the challengers to be hopeful in the first rather than the second argument,&#8221; Turley stated. &#8220;Of course, predicting outcomes from oral argument is a precarious practice but we may have some indication soon in the form of an administrative stay in the OSHA case if a majority has formed in favor of the challengers.&#8221;
The Daily Wire is fighting Joe Biden’s vaccine mandate in federal court. Join us in this fight by <a href="https://lp.dailywire.com/osha-petition/">signing</a> our petition to OSHA, telling them that you will not comply with this mandate.
</article>

Supreme Court January 7

Legal Expert: Conservative Justices Bring ‘Markedly Different’ Questions During Vaccine Mandate Oral Arguments

SCOTUS

Virginia is jumping into legal battles against President Joe Biden’s COVID-19 orders for large employers and healthcare workers as soon as GOP Governor-elect Glenn Youngkin takes over as the chief executive.
Youngkin and Virginia Attorney General-elect Jason Miyares announced the planned action on Friday, saying that the commonwealth will “quickly move to protect Virginians’ freedoms” after Youngkin’s inauguration on January 15, according to <a href="https://www.cbs19news.com/story/45605457/new-gop-leaders-say-virginia-to-join-vax-mandate-challenges">CBS 19</a>.
“While we believe that the vaccine is a critical tool in the fight against COVID-19, we strongly believe that the Federal government cannot impose its will and restrict the freedoms of Americans and that Virginia is at its best when her people are allowed to make the best decisions for their families or businesses,” Youngkin and Miyares said in a joint statement.
The announcement comes the same day as the Supreme Court hears arguments in both cases over whether to implement injunctions on each of Biden’s orders while legal challenges to the rules are settled in lower courts. The Supreme Court heard arguments Friday morning in the case concerning large employers, which under an emergency Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standard would be forced to either vaccinate or test weekly all their employees.
The court appeared to lean against Biden’s vaccinate or test mandate for large employers, but justices appeared more open to Biden’s vaccine mandate for healthcare workers, according to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/07/us/politics/biden-vaccine-mandate-supreme-court.html">The New York Times</a>. The Times reported:
<blockquote>Members of the Supreme Court’s conservative majority seemed skeptical on Friday that the Biden administration has the legal power to mandate that the nation’s large employers require workers to be vaccinated against the coronavirus or to undergo frequent testing. A federal workplace safety law, they indicated during a two-hour argument, did not provide legal authority for the sweeping emergency measure.
The court seemed more likely to sustain a separate requirement that health care workers at facilities that receive federal money be vaccinated. That regulation, the subject of a second argument, was in keeping with other kinds of federal oversight and was supported by virtually the entire medical establishment, some justices noted.</blockquote>
Throughout argumentation, Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor repeatedly misstated facts about COVID-19, claiming that the Omicron variant is as deadly as the Delta variant and asserting that 100,000 children are hospitalized “in serious condition” because of the virus. Neither claim is supported by evidence, and her claim about hospitalized children is off by many orders of magnitude. As <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/justice-sotomayor-totally-botches-covid-19-facts-about-omicron-children-in-hospital-in-line-of-questioning">The Daily Wire</a> reported:
<blockquote>Numerous preliminary studies have indicated that Omicron, while more transmissible, is far less deadly than the Delta variant of COVID-19. Likewise, real-world data show that while the vaccine may reduce the severity of a COVID-19 case, it does not necessarily prevent transmission of the virus to other people.
On Wednesday, White House chief medical advisor Dr. Anthony Fauci <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/05/fauci-says-multiple-preliminary-studies-find-omicron-is-less-severe-than-delta.html">stated</a> that “multiple sources of now-preliminary data indicate a decrease severity with Omicron.”
“Fauci cited a study from Ontario, Canada, that found the risk of hospitalization or death was 65% lower among people infected with omicron compared with individuals who caught delta. The risk of admission to an intensive care unit or death from omicron was 83% lower, according to the study,” CNBC <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/05/fauci-says-multiple-preliminary-studies-find-omicron-is-less-severe-than-delta.html">reported.</a></blockquote>

Glenn Youngkin

VA Gov.-Elect Glenn Youngkin Promises To Join Fight Against Biden Vax Orders

On Friday, the United States Supreme Court <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/supreme-court-oral-arguments-begin-in-the-daily-wires-challenge-against-bidens-vaccine-mandate">heard oral arguments</a> in a case challenging the Biden administration’s federal COVID-19 vaccine or test mandate for employers with more than 100 employees. During questioning, Justice Amy Coney Barrett pressed attorneys arguing in favor of President Joe Biden’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate, enforced through the federal government’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration, as to how long OSHA expected the emergency to last, thus giving the federal agency authority to enact the mandate without comment from Congress.
As <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/01/biden-vaccine-policies-face-supreme-court-test-amid-nationwide-covid-19-surge/">SCOTUS Blog pointed</a> out, Elizabeth Prelogar, the U.S. Solicitor General arguing on behalf of the Biden administration, maintains that OSHA is simply exercising &#8220;the power that Congress gave it under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, which directs OSHA to issue emergency rules when it determines that a rule is &#8216;necessary&#8217; to protect employees from a &#8216;grave danger&#8217; from exposure to &#8216;physically harmful&#8217; &#8216;agents&#8217;/or &#8216;new hazards&#8221; because COVID-19 meets those comments and threatens unvaccinated workers.
As for why OSHA can enact this without comment from Congress, OSHA&#8217;s &#8220;emergency rules can go into effect immediately, without the notice-and-comment procedures normally required for agency rulemaking,&#8221; SCOTUS Blog added.
However, Barrett pressured pro-mandate attorneys as to when the emergency would end so that Congress could formally weigh in on the OSHA ruling.
&#8220;When does the emergency end? I mean, a lot of this argument has been about Congress&#8217;s failure to act. Two years from now, do we have any reason to think that COVID will be gone or that new variants might not be emerging?&#8221; Coney Barrett asked, &#8220;And when, when must OSHA actually resort to its regular authority and go through notice and comment and not simply be kind of doing it in this quick way, which doesn&#8217;t afford people, the voice in the process that there are otherwise entitled to?&#8221;
&#8220;So I think if I could respond to that in a few different ways,&#8221; Prelogar responded. &#8220;Congress defined when the emergency exists, it labeled this an emergency temporary standard, but it&#8217;s dictated by the statutory requirements so there has to be a grave danger from a physically harmful agent or a new hazard, and the measures have to be necessary to protect against that danger. And we don&#8217;t think that there&#8217;s an additional free-floating requirement about the emergency status that has to be taken into account.&#8221;
&#8220;So it could be an emergency two more years from now?&#8221; Coney Barrett asked.
&#8220;Well, I certainly take the point that the emergency can be of substantial duration,&#8221; Prelogar said. &#8220;Of course, this is not a way to, to bypass, notice and comment permanently. Congress, further specify that the agency is expected to conduct a rule-making process over six months And that&#8217;s why the agency estimated the lives saved, the hospitalizations prevented over the six-month life of the rule.&#8221;
&#8220;Sure, but I was envisioning a new rule,&#8221; Coney Barrett pushed back. &#8220;Two years from now, OSHA might two years from now adopt something that&#8217;s different from this vaccine or mask and test mandate. I&#8217;m just talking about the limits more generally on OSHA&#8217;s power under the ETS provision.&#8221;
&#8220;The limits I think are the ones written into the statute. And so if you want to project out two years from now, I think it&#8217;s entirely possible of course, that the trajectory of the pandemic will change. I certainly hope so. And in that case, OSHA, I think would have to, if it wanted to regulate again, cross that the high burden of showing a grave danger,&#8221; Prelogar said, before adding that issuing a stay on the current order would harm Americans.
Scott Keller, former Texas solicitor general arguing on behalf of the anti-mandate plaintiffs, responded to Prelogar&#8217;s argument by saying &#8220;it&#8217;s unreasonable to assume that Congress gave OSHA unprecedented power over American industry and the emergency power is also narrowly circumscribed yet here OSHA has never, before done mandated vaccines or widespread testing, much less over all industries or on an emergency basis,&#8221; he argued.
&#8220;So whether we&#8217;re talking about the agency&#8217;s failure to explain, whether we&#8217;re talking about the statutory term necessary, whether we&#8217;re talking about how this has to be tethered to the workplace, under the major questions doctrine — under any one of those theories, we are likely to succeed on the merits,&#8221; he claimed regarding why his side is constitutionally correct.
&#8220;And finally, when it comes to the public interest, as this court just recognized a few months ago,&#8221; he added, it is undisputable that the public has a strong interest in combating the spread of the COVID-19 Delta variant but our system does not permit agencies to act unlawfully even in pursuit of desirable ends.&#8221;
It is expected that the court may issue a stay on the mandate or rule by Monday whether or not the OSHA rule is constitutional, as requested by the anti-mandate plaintiffs.
<div class="css-j7qwjs">
<div id="post-body-text">
<div class="e1nzmkc90 css-ip02xz">
The Daily Wire is fighting Joe Biden’s vaccine mandate in federal court. Join us in this fight by <a href="https://lp.dailywire.com/osha-petition/">signing</a> our petition to OSHA, telling them that you will not comply with this mandate.
</div>
</div>
</div>

amy coney barrett

Amy Coney Barrett Asks Key COVID-19 Question: When Will The Emergency End?

Amy Coney Barrett

The United States Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on Friday in a case challenging the Biden administration’s federal COVID-19 vaccine or test mandate for employers with more than 100 employees. In 2021, The Daily Wire was the first major business to file suit against that mandate, followed by several other petitioners, challenging the Biden administration&#8217;s use of Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to carry out the order, arguing that it was a violation of the constitution and that the mandate is not necessary to protect workers. The case has since been consolidated.
As covered on The Daily Wire&#8217;s &#8220;<a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/biden-pushes-new-voting-law/id1576594336?i=1000547180918">Morning Wire</a>&#8221; podcast, the case was first stayed by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and the 6th Circuit lifted that stay.
Immediately after that ruling, attorneys for The Daily Wire petitioned SCOTUS to hear the case.
&#8220;We are confident in our cause. We have the rule of law – administrative and constitutional – on our side. We have the science on our side,&#8221; The Daily Wire&#8217;s co-CEO Jeremy Boreing <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/were-taking-our-lawsuit-against-biden-to-the-supreme-court">said in an op-ed</a>.&#8221; We have the best and most moral arguments on our side. If the Supreme Court will hear our case, we will win. If they won’t, it won’t just be a loss for us at The Daily Wire, but for all Americans. It’s hard to claim to be a free country when you can force businesses to force their employees to either violate their own consciences and inject themselves with drugs they do not wish to take, be discriminated against, or be fired.&#8221;
&#8220;At the end of the day, the government has the POWER to make us all comply, but they do not have the RIGHT to make us all comply. That’s why we must keep fighting,&#8221; he added.
Now, SCOTUS is set to hear the case on an expedited schedule, limiting the argument time to one hour and choosing two representative petitioners to argue. &#8220;Those were a coalition of 28 states including Ohio, Florida, Texas, and Tennessee, and a coalition of businesses called the National Federation of Independent Business,&#8221; Morning Wire added.
The OSHA mandate is scheduled to go into effect on January 10th with enforcement beginning February 9th. It is expected that a decision could come before Monday. Morning Wire also reported there are several avenues that the SCOTUS could take to rule the mandate unconstitutional:
<blockquote>There are many constitutional and statutory reasons the Court could grant a stay. The petitioners will argue that this mandate is not “necessary” to protect workers from a “grave danger.” There will likely be some back and forth on the meaning of the word “necessary,” and whether unvaccinated workers are the kind of “grave danger” from which Congress was trying to protect workers when it passed the OSHA Act. 
Another avenue the Court could take is the Major Questions Doctrine, which requires agencies making decisions of “vast economic and political significance” to have specific and clear direction from Congress itself before implementing such a policy. The argument is that Congress created OSHA to protect workers but never specifically told OSHA it could essentially shut people out of the workforce if they don’t take a vaccine.</blockquote>
As of press time, oral arguments were underway before SCOTUS.
Clarification: Daily Wire is one of several entities suing the Biden administration over the OSHA mandate, and was the first to file in the sixth circuit. 
<div class="css-j7qwjs">
<div id="post-body-text">
<div class="e1nzmkc90 css-ip02xz">
The Daily Wire is fighting Joe Biden’s vaccine mandate in federal court. Join us in this fight by <a href="https://lp.dailywire.com/osha-petition/">signing</a> our petition to OSHA, telling them that you will not comply with this mandate.
</div>
</div>
</div>

08F54B57-4412-44B7-B1DE-8FB25EE3D25E_1_201_a

Supreme Court Oral Arguments Begin In Challenge Against Biden’s Vaccine Mandate

The Daily Wire

Moderate Democratic West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin said that he still opposes the Biden administration&#8217;s vaccine mandate for businesses with more than 100 employees, after a federal court ruled to allow the mandate to proceed.
Manchin made the comments during an interview with Bret Baier on &#8220;<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h61hhGMe_oA&amp;t=738s">Fox News Sunday</a>.&#8221;
&#8220;You had Friday, a ruling from the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals allowing President Biden&#8217;s vaccine requirements for large private employers to move forward. You&#8217;ve been clear you&#8217;ve been against mandates on businesses,&#8221; Baier said. &#8220;What&#8217;s your reaction to that, and what you think is going to happen?&#8221;
&#8220;Well, first of all, my reaction is President Biden has been doing everything humanly possible to get vaccines and making sure people understand how serious this is,&#8221; Manchin responded. &#8220;I&#8217;ve had all of my vaccine shots and my booster, too. My whole family has. I recommend and basically plead with every West Virginian, every American to do so.&#8221;
&#8220;But with that, I&#8217;ve said first public dollars. We&#8217;re working for your tax dollars,&#8221; Manchin continued. &#8220;Then the government employees, the military, all the services that we depend on by what we&#8217;re supporting through our public dollars, should be that mandate which the president put out as an order. I agree 1,000 percent with him.&#8221;
&#8220;I did not agree on the private sector of 100-plus members &#8212; employees of a business or more. I thought businesses really should make those decisions. They have done and they want [to do and] keep their employees healthy. They should be able to make the decisions,&#8221; Manchin said. &#8220;It shouldn&#8217;t be that government has to make every decision in the private arena. That&#8217;s all.&#8221;
However, Manchin conceded to the decision by the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-federal-appeals-court-allows-biden-vaccine-mandate-to-resume-for-large-companies">Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals</a>, which allowed the mandate to proceed, and encouraged Americans to get vaccinated.
&#8220;But now, the courts &#8212; the courts have spoken. That is the law. I pray to good Lord that everyone abides by this law, and get vaccinated. Please, get vaccinated,&#8221; Manchin said.
Manchin originally came out against the employer mandate in a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/top-democratic-senator-comes-out-against-bidens-vaccine-mandate-supports-legislation-to-overturn">statement</a> on December 2nd, as The Daily Wire previously reported. “In the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic and as the new Omicron variant emerges, I will not vote to shut down the government for purely political reasons,” Manchin said at the time. “There is too much at stake for the American people. But let me be clear, I do not support any government vaccine mandate on private businesses.”
“That’s why I have cosponsored and will strongly support a bill to overturn the federal government vaccine mandate for private businesses,” Manchin continued. “I have long said we should incentivize, not penalize, private employers whose responsibility it is to protect their employees from COVID-19. I have personally had both vaccine doses and a booster shot and I continue to urge every West Virginian to get vaccinated themselves.”
The Daily Wire was one of the first companies to challenge the Biden administration&#8217;s vaccine mandate for large businesses. A group of more than two dozen business has since <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-27-business-groups-file-appeal-taking-vaccine-mandate-fight-to-supreme-court">filed an appeal</a> with the Supreme Court asking to overturn the Sixth Circuit&#8217;s decision.
The Daily Wire is fighting Joe Biden’s vaccine mandate in federal court. Join us in this fight by <a href="https://lp.dailywire.com/osha-petition/">signing</a> our petition to OSHA, telling them that you will not comply with this mandate.

Vaccine

Manchin Still Opposes Private Vaccine Mandate, But ‘Courts Have Spoken’

COVID-19 Vaccine

Joe Manchin

On Sunday, Republican Florida Governor Ron DeSantis appeared on Fox News’ “Sunday Morning Futures” with host Maria Bartiromo to discuss issues related to COVID-19.
During the segment, Bartiromo spoke with DeSantis about the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals dissolving the stay on the Biden administration’s vaccine and test mandate for private employers.
“…an appeals court on Friday allowed President Biden&#8217;s vaccine mandate for private employers to take effect as New York and California are reimposing these mask mandates,” Bartiromo said. “It looks like this is going to the Supreme Court.”
DeSantis responded, saying that he thought the 6th Circuit made a “terrible decision.”
“I do think we&#8217;re going to get positive relief from the U.S. Supreme Court on that,” the governor stated. “But Maria, what we did in Florida is we didn&#8217;t leave it to chance. We passed substantive protections in a special session for Floridians so that they are able to have generous ability to opt out of these types of mandates.”
DeSantis continued, noting the importance of winning the case at the Supreme Court:
<blockquote>…it&#8217;s important from a legal and constitutional matter that something like the OSHA mandate not be allowed to stand. They reached back decades, found some statute, and are using that to force vaccinations. That’s never been done in the history of our country. And so, I think it&#8217;s a massive expansion of federal power that goes beyond the Constitution. So, we absolutely need to win that case at the Supreme Court.</blockquote>
<iframe loading="lazy" title="YouTube video player" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Xpy99HAXM9E" width="720" height="385" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen">﻿</iframe>
TRANSCRIPT:
<blockquote>BARTIROMO: Governor, a federal judge, an appeals court on Friday allowed President Biden&#8217;s vaccine mandate for private employers to take effect as New York and California are reimposing these mask mandates. It looks like this is going to the Supreme Court. You recently talked about that monoclonal treatment from AstraZeneca, right?
DESANTIS: Well, first of all, on the OSHA mandate, I thought it was a terrible decision. Now, this is just a three judge panel. I thought the whole circuit in the 6th would certainly have struck this down. I do think we&#8217;re going to get positive relief from the U.S. Supreme Court on that. But Maria, what we did in Florida is we didn&#8217;t leave it to chance. We passed substantive protections in a special session for Floridians so that they are able to have generous ability to opt out of these types of mandates. And so, we feel like we&#8217;ve done what we needed to do to protect our employees. I think it&#8217;s important from a legal and constitutional matter that something like the OSHA mandate not be allowed to stand. They reached back decades, found some statute, and are using that to force vaccinations. That’s never been done in the history of our country. And so, I think it&#8217;s a massive expansion of federal power that goes beyond the Constitution. So, we absolutely need to win that case at the Supreme Court.
And yes, we had another monoclonal — this is more for preventative, for very high-risk people. You take it, and then you’ve got about six months of really good protection — and we should be talking about all this stuff. All you hear is the same stuff about masking and lockdowns. We should be talking more about early treatment. Fortunately, in Florida, we are, but that has been a huge problem for the last year when we&#8217;ve had available treatments and they&#8217;ve not been touted by the powers that be.</blockquote>
Related:
<ul>
<li><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-federal-appeals-court-allows-biden-vaccine-mandate-to-resume-for-large-companies">Federal Appeals Court Allows Biden Vaccine Mandate To Resume For Large Companies</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/osha-delays-compliance-and-enforcement-dates-for-reinstated-vax-or-test-mandate">OSHA Delays Compliance And Enforcement Dates For Reinstated Vax Or Test Mandate</a></li>
</ul>
The Daily Wire is fighting Joe Biden’s vaccine mandate in federal court. Join us in this fight by <a href="https://lp.dailywire.com/osha-petition/">signing</a> our petition to OSHA, telling them that you will not comply with this mandate.

DeSantis

DeSantis: ‘Important’ That ‘OSHA Mandate Not Be Allowed To Stand,’ ‘Massive Expansion Of Federal Power’

Ron DeSantis

On Saturday, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) pushed back the compliance and enforcement schedule for the Biden administration’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate for private companies. This comes a day after the decision by the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals to dissolve the stay on the mandate that was put in place by the 5th Circuit Court in November.
The agency released a <a href="https://www.dol.gov/newsroom/releases/osha/osha20211218">statement</a> saying that in order to provide time for employers to comply with the mandate, “OSHA will not issue citations for noncompliance with any requirements of the ETS before January 10 and will not issue citations for noncompliance with the standard’s testing requirements before February 9, so long as an employer is exercising reasonable, good faith efforts to come into compliance with the standard.”
OSHA also noted in the release that it was “gratified” by the 6th Circuit decision.
On Friday, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-federal-appeals-court-allows-biden-vaccine-mandate-to-resume-for-large-companies">issued an order</a>, written by Judge Jane B. Stranch, dissolving the 5th Circuit&#8217;s stay on the Biden administration’s vaccine mandate (ETS) on private employers. It was accompanied by a dissent by Judge Joan Larsen.
The mandate, promulgated by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), requires that all companies with 100 or more workers mandate COVID-19 vaccination or weekly testing and masking for employees.
The order criticizes the 5th Circuit&#8217;s reasoning, saying:
<blockquote>In reaching its decision to stay the ETS, the Fifth Circuit generally forecasted that the ETS faced fatal statutory and constitutional issues, then concluded that the Petitioners had demonstrated a strong likelihood of success on the merits. … the Fifth Circuit found that individuals, states, and employers would be “substantially burdened” due to the compliance costs, loss of constitutional freedom, and intrusion into States’ “constitutionally reserved police power.” … Without addressing any of OSHA’s factual explanations or its supporting scientific evidence concerning harm, the Fifth Circuit summarily concluded that “a stay will do OSHA no harm whatsoever” and “a stay is firmly in the public interest.”</blockquote>
After a lengthy discussion of OSHA’s claimed statutory authority to implement such a mandate, Stranch writes of the “Major Questions Doctrine,” which was brought up by the petitioners.
“The major questions doctrine is inapplicable here, however, because OSHA’s issuance of the ETS is not an enormous expansion of its regulatory authority,” Stranch writes. “OSHA has regulated workplace health and safety on a national scale since 1970, including controlling the spread of disease.”
“The ETS is not a novel expansion of OSHA’s power; it is an existing application of authority to a novel and dangerous worldwide pandemic,” Stranch continues.
The order also finds that OSHA&#8217;s ETS is &#8220;necessary&#8221; because the Delta variant has led to an increase in cases.
As for the 5th Circuit’s claim that the mandate is both “overinclusive” and “underinclusive,” the order states: “OSHA may lean ‘on the side of overprotection rather than underprotection’ when promulgating an ETS.”
The order adds that according to OSHA’s economic impact analysis, the argument that the implementation costs of the mandate on businesses will be too high is incongruent with reality.
<blockquote>…the costs of delaying implementation of the ETS are comparatively high. Fundamentally, the ETS is an important step in curtailing the transmission of a deadly virus that has killed over 800,000 people in the United States, brought our healthcare system to its knees, forced businesses to shut down for months on end, and cost hundreds of thousands of workers their jobs.</blockquote>
The dissenting opinion by Judge Joan Larsen takes umbrage with the ruling, arguing: “The purpose of the mandate is to protect unvaccinated people. … The rule’s premise is that vaccines work. … And so, OSHA has explained that the rule is not about protecting the vaccinated; they do not face ‘grave danger’ from working with those who are not vaccinated.”
Larsen opines that the petitioners are likely to succeed in an ultimate ruling against OSHA: “[Petitioners] say, for example, that the mandate violates the nondelegation doctrine, the Commerce Clause, and substantive due process; some say that it violates their constitutionally protected religious liberties and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. To lift the stay entirely, we would have to conclude that not one of these challenges is likely to succeed. A tall task.”
“…OSHA believed there was a problem to be solved. But the statute requires OSHA to find that the solution it actually picked—the nationwide vaccinate-or-test mandate—was ‘necessary’ to solve the problem,” Larsen writes, adding that “OSHA never makes that case.”
The dissent likens the ETS to a pizzeria requiring that every employee wear oven mitts for safety — it might be effective, but is it necessary? It notes that OSHA could have easily rendered a more tailored mandate, one that “considered a standard aimed at the most vulnerable workers; or an exemption for the least.”
“…the agency’s claim of emergency rings hollow. It waited nearly two years since the beginning of the pandemic and nearly one year since vaccines became available to the public to issue its vaccinate-or-test mandate. The agency does not explain why, in that time, it could not have explored more finely tuned approaches,” the judge notes.
Larsen further opines that COVID-19 does not amount to a &#8220;grave danger&#8221; in the workplace such that OSHA has authority to issue such a sweeping mandate:
<blockquote>…a quick look at the evidence raises an eyebrow. OSHA has determined that no vaccinated worker is in “grave danger,” whereas all unvaccinated workers are. … But the government’s own data reveal that the death rate for unvaccinated people between the ages of 18 and 29 is roughly equivalent to that of vaccinated persons between 50 and 64. … So an unvaccinated 18-year-old bears the same risk as a vaccinated 50-year-old. And yet, the 18-year-old is in grave danger, while the 50-year-old is not. One of these conclusions must be wrong; either way is a problem for OSHA’s rule.</blockquote>
“…OSHA admits that it ‘cannot state with precision the total number of workers in our nation who have contracted COVID-19 at work.’ … And it has not identified any particular rate or risk of workplace exposure to COVID-19,” Larsen continues.
<blockquote>OSHA has alerted us to no prior attempt on its part to mandate a solution that extends beyond the workplace walls — much less a permanent and physically intrusive one, promulgated on an emergency basis, without any chance for public participation. But that it is what OSHA has done here. A vaccine may not be taken off when the workday ends; and its effects, unlike this rule, will not expire in six months.</blockquote>
The dissent also argues that the ETS violates the Major Questions Doctrine. “OSHA has never issued an emergency standard of this scope,” Larsen states. “Each of this rule’s few predecessors addressed discrete problems in particular industries.”
<blockquote>But no matter how many times OSHA has regulated discrete illnesses in particular workspaces, this emergency rule remains a massive expansion of the scope of its authority.</blockquote>
Larsen concludes in part by noting that “[petitioners] have shown a likelihood of success on the merits of their challenge to the emergency rule,” that petitioners will be irreparably harmed without the stay (on an individual basis, as well as in business), and that it is unlikely that OSHA would suffer harm from waiting.
The Daily Wire is fighting Joe Biden’s vaccine mandate in federal court. Join us in this fight by <a href="https://lp.dailywire.com/osha-petition/">signing</a> our petition to OSHA, telling them that you will not comply with this mandate.

Menu