Breaking: United States Supreme Court Stays OSHA Vaccine Mandate for Employers
In a per curiam opinion released on Thursday, January 13, 2022, the United States Supreme Court has stayed OSHA’s new emergency vaccine mandate rule.
By way of background, on September 9, 2021, President Biden announced a plan to require more Americans to be vaccinated. As part of his plan, the President announced the Department of Labor would be issuing 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.”
Two months later, the Secretary of Labor issued the new emergency rule requiring employers with 100 or more employees to “develop, implement, and enforce a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy.” The rule also requires employers with 100 or more employees to verify the vaccination status of each employee and maintain proof of it. Unvaccinated workers must undergo weekly COVID-19 testing and wear a face covering at work in lieu of vaccination. Violations were subject to a fine of $13,654 for standard violations, and up to $136,532 for willful violations.
On November 5, 2021, the new emergency rule was published. Immediately, several parties filed petitions for review in the federal courts. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals initially stayed the new emergency rule pending further review. However, after consolidation of the several cases to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, the Sixth Circuit dissolved the stay issued by the Fifth Circuit, holding that the mandate was likely consistent with the agency’s authority.
On appeal to the United States Supreme Court, the Supreme Court disagreed with the Sixth Circuit and held the applicants seeking to overturn the new vaccine mandate were “likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that the Secretary [of Labor] lacked authority to impose the mandate.” As such, the applications to stay the vaccine mandate were granted by the Court. While the litigation over the validity of the emergency rule might continue, the Court’s ruling certainly prevents the rule from taking effect for the immediate future, and likely signals how the Court would ultimately rule on the underlying merits should the case come back before the Court.