SCOTUS Knocks Down Biden Vaccine Mandate

Did they get it right?

News outlets and political-reality TV (previously known as cable news networks) were alight yesterday, either praising or admonishing the supreme court’s ruling. The commentators on left and right leaning media were quick to give their respective takes which were, predictably, antithetical.

Rachel Maddow, a well-known liberal host for MSNBC, posted a pair of fevered retweets to show her distaste for the court’s decision. One of these retweets was from Dr. Ashish K. Jha, a Physician and Dean of the Brown University School of Public Health

As a physician and public health person I find this ruling very disappointing. So many Americans have been poisoned with vaccine misinformation. Mandates work to protect them and those around them. This ruling will mean more suffering, more deaths, and more overwhelmed hospitals.

Joy Reid, another prominent liberal host and beacon of journalistic integrity (JK), angrily tweeted

The 6 SCOTUS right wingers are like “come on in, COVID. Make yourself at home!”

On the other end of the ideological chasm, republican Congresswoman Lauren Boebert shared her own thoughts on the matter, utilizing the moment as a rallying cry

The Supreme Court has BLOCKED Biden’s UNCONSTITUTIONAL vaccine mandate! This is only the beginning… in 2022 we take our country back!

Following the decision, many blue-checkmark elites inside the Twitterverse were quick to give their virtuous and unassailable (Did I do sarcasm right?) opinions on the court’s performance. Many were focused on vaccine efficacy, the threat level presented by the latest variant, mixed with more calls to alter the court’s structure, and a dash of disparaging comments directed at those opposed to their views. Just more of the top-notch dialogue we enjoy in modern America!

Many of these heated exchanges are missing (or perhaps evading?) an important note: This ruling was not about the merits or failings of COVID-19 vaccines; it was about the constitutionality of vaccine mandates imposed by the federal government.

The federal government appeared to acknowledge that a federal mandate was unconstitutional early on. Nancy Pelosi and (then) President-Elect Biden said as much, as seen below:

Upon taking his seat in our nation’s highest office however, the new president and his administration seemed to grow weary of a large swath of pesky Americans, resolute in their dedication to bodily autonomy and the liberties afforded to them in our constitution. The President said it “was not about freedom or personal choice”, enlisting OSHA to enforce his new mandate. Utilizing an unelected government agency to enforce his mandate was a cunning way to circumvent the constitutional limits placed on presidential authority for which his chief of staff, Ron Klain, infamously appeared to acknowledge through his twitter activity.

So, what exactly happened yesterday? Has the Supreme Court been hijacked by a bunch of “right wingers” as Joy Reid so eloquently suggested, or did they succeed in upholding constitutional law?

Following their ruling, the deciding justices stated that "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," they continued on, saying that "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."

To put it simply, managing public health matters is not one of the federal government’s constitutionally enumerated powers, and any power not granted to the federal government belongs to state-level governments. State-level governments derive their authority to manage public health through the tenth ammendment, and the police powers granted to them therein. Legal precedent for state-level vaccine mandates was established by the 1905 Jacobson v. Massachusetts supreme court decision.

Vaccine mandates are legal, if ordered by state governments. The Biden administration simply lacked the constitutional authority, but they always knew that didn’t they?

In his statement, the President’s frustration with his latest loss was clear. He declared his disappointment in the ruling, asserting that the “common-sense life-saving requirements for employees at large businesses” were “grounded squarely in both science and the law”. I think for the purposes of this edition, I’ll leave the science argument for another day. As for the Law, Mr. President, I think the Supreme Court disagrees.

(Please feel free to like, comment, and share with friends if you enjoyed this newsletter. Thank you for reading- Dane)