By Noah Rothman
Tuesday, November 09, 2021
President Joe Biden will not let a few court-administered
embarrassments dissuade him from mounting an assault on the separation of
powers. The legal setback his administration’s vaccine mandate recently
encountered is no exception.
On Saturday, a federal appeals court suspended the enforcement of the
Biden administration’s effort to impose a vaccine mandate on private companies
with more than 100 employees. The judges empaneled on the Fifth Circuit issued
the emergency injunction because they had “cause to believe there are grave
statutory and constitutional issues with the mandate.” The court, therefore,
temporarily suspended the Occupational Safety and Health Act from imposing
fines on businesses that do not either fire unvaccinated employees or subject
them to regular COVID testing.
No matter, said the increasingly imperious White House.
Deputy Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre told employers on Monday that they “should not wait”
for the legal process to play out. Businesses should operate under the
assumption that OSHA’s “Emergency Temporary Standard” will take effect on
January 4, 2022. The date suggests an oddly sluggish pace to implement an
“emergency” anything, especially given Jean-Pierre’s labored effort to suggest
that this ETS comports with legal precedent around such measures because COVID
represents a “grave danger” to workers.
“If OSHA can tell people to wear a hard hat on the job,
to be careful around chemicals, it can put in place these simple measures to
keep our workers safe,” said White House Chief of Staff Ron Klain over the
weekend. In fact, the Fifth Circuit has previously found that OSHA “cannot
use its ETS powers as a stop-gap measure” when other effective remedies for
unsafe workplace conditions exist or if the costs imposed on businesses and
workers are unreasonable. Moreover, a “failure to act may be evidence that a
situation is not a true emergency”—like, say, delaying the implementation of an
emergency measure for nearly four months after it was announced.
The practical effect of the White House’s effort to
convince businesses to comply with its mandate—one which carries steep penalties for firms and individuals that violate
its terms—will be to convince the public to ignore the courts. And perhaps that
is the White House’s intention. After all, that’s what the president said he
hoped to achieve when he disregarded a court ruling that struck down the
extension of a moratorium on evictions.
“Are you sure it’s going to pass Supreme Court muster?”
Biden was asked in August about his plans to re-issue the defunct moratorium
despite the Supreme Court’s warning that it would have to expire. The
president’s short answer was, in fact, no. “The bulk of the
Constitutional scholarship says that it’s not likely to pass Constitutional
muster,” Biden confessed. This wasn’t an unconsidered remark; Biden’s own aides admitted as much to reporters. Nevertheless, the president
insisted, “it’s worth the effort.”
It turns out the Court did not appreciate such open
defiance of its authority by a co-equal branch. Just three weeks after Biden’s
comments, the Supreme Court abandoned its collegial deference to the
administration and forcibly halted the eviction moratorium. An executive
agency—in this case, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention—had no
authority to unilaterally abrogate property rights in the United States, public
health emergencies notwithstanding.
That same Court is likely to have to adjudicate the
administration’s vaccine mandate when the Fifth Circuit ruling is appealed. It
has previously declined to block state-level vaccination requirements, but
legal scholars aren’t entirely sure a federal mandate will withstand the same
scrutiny. As Fordham University professor Nicholas Tampio wrote,
officials have spent most of the last year calling for unconstitutional
proscriptions on the freedoms of those without proof of full vaccination. Even
that quasi-legal status is itself in doubt given the likelihood that booster
shots will soon become available to all adults, which public health patriarchs
such as Dr. Anthony Fauci said will force the administration
to amend the meaning of the phrase “fully vaccinated.”
These fluid standards do not make for a reliable and
predictable social covenant. That will inform the Supreme Court’s deliberations
if asked to weigh in on the Fifth Circuit’s ruling. As it should. A pandemic is
no excuse for adhocracy.
No comments:
Post a Comment