In this Episode of The GRID, host Chris Kuhlmann examines the Supreme Court decision to prevent implementation and enforcement of the OSHA Emergency Vaccine Mandate for private employers with 100 or more employees. The decision issued by the court this week does not to rule on the case itself, but determined that the plaintiffs have a high likelihood of success and therefore granted relief via an injunction while the case continues through the courts.
Included in the notes here is a link to the 30 page decision.
CREDITS
Host: Chris Kuhlmann
Written by: Chris Kuhlmann
Produced by: Shaun Griffin
Music composed by JD Kuhlmann
Art: Shaun Griffin
Sound: Chris Kuhlmann and Shaun Griffin
Sponsor: The Law offices of Joshua Kuhlmann
Call 903-574-3789 for a free consultation.
Visit us at www.kingdompatriot.us and check out our Vision Video
SHOW NOTES
SCOTUS – OSHA Mandate Decision
There is no bigger news during this past week than the SCOTUS decision regarding the OSHA vaccines mandates and the HHS mandates. We will spend time today unpacking those decisions, what it means and what it doesn’t mean.
Read it for yourself at the link below, It’s 30 pages, but Chris’s comments were taken taken directly from the actual opinion.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21a244_hgci.pdf
Quick Mandate Recap
To be clear, this is not to rule on the case itself, but to determine if the plaintiffs have a high likelihood of success and therefore granted relief via an injunction while the case continues thru the courts.
First, the end result. In a 6-3 opinion, the supreme court ruled that the plaintiffs had a high likelihood of success in their suit and there said an injunction on the regulation would be in place until promulgated thru the courts. Now let’s look into what the court said:
So for a moment, what does this mean? What just happened here? Because in different circuits there were different rulings on the stay and request for injunctive relief, it opened the door for the supreme court to hear arguments regarding the stay of the rule. This is important, because in theory, it makes no sense for a rule to go into effect that has significant regulatory implications and burdens only to be declared unconstitutional by the court and then have to be unwound. That’s why this ruling is so significant. The stay has nothing to do with ruling on the actual case, but it does give insight to whether or not the Supreme Court believes the plaintiff will prevail. So in essence, in a 6-3 decision, the court is saying there is very little chance that OSHA actually had proper authority to do what it did and the plaintiffs are very likely to succeed. In addition, the court laid a very logical and detailed opinion as to why the plaintiffs are likely to succeed.
If OSHA wanted to save face, they would drop this and start over, but as we see with this administration, they double down on everything. As Ben Shapiro likes to say, “more cowbells.”
Now into the case itself
OSHA was enacted in 1970 specifically with insuring safe and healthful working conditions by enforcing rules issued by the secretary. The development of these rules must be done using a rigorous process that includes notice, comment, and an opportunity for public hearing. The standards issued by the secretary must be “reasonably necessary or appropriate to provide safe or healthful employment.”
The Act contains an exception to those ordinary notice and-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.”
The Supreme Court opined
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.” …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.”
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.
…The Solicitor General does not dispute that OSHA is limited to regulating “work-related dangers.” 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.
…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.
…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.
Justice Gorsuch further commented:
Not only must the federal government properly invoke a constitutionally enumerated source of authority to regulate in this area or any other. It must also act consistently with the Constitution’s separation of powers. And when it comes to that obligation, this Court has established at least one firm rule: “We expect Congress to speak clearly” if it wishes to assign to an executive agency decisions “of vast economic and political significance.” We sometimes call this the major questions doctrine. OSHA’s mandate fails that doctrine’s test. The agency claims the power to force 84 million Americans to receive a vaccine or undergo regular testing. By any measure, that is a claim of power to resolve a question of vast national significance. Yet Congress has nowhere clearly assigned so much power to OSHA. Approximately two years have passed since this pandemic began; vaccines have been available for more than a year. Over that span, Congress has adopted several major pieces of legislation aimed at combating COVID–19. But Congress has chosen not to afford OSHA—or any federal agency—the authority to issue a vaccine mandate. Indeed, a majority of the Senate even voted to disapprove OSHA’s regulation.
Are you paying attention to what Gorsuch said? He said, “Indeed, a majority of the Senate even voted to disapprove OSHA’s regulation.” Do you know what he’s referring to? He’s referring to the Senate’s 52-48 rebuke of the OSHA regulation using the Congressional Review Act.
Does that sound familiar?
It should because that’s what we here at the Kingdom Patriot Group urged everyone to contact their congressman to invoke this act and while we knew it wouldn’t pass the house, it put the Senators on record of having to support or rebuke OSHA’s overreach. Who knew at the time that this senate vote using the Congressional Review Act would be reviewed and used to support the Supreme Court’s assumption that Congress had no intention of giving OSHA this kind of power and authority!
This is huge!!! You made a difference!!!!
But I digress….
At the end of the day, SCOTUS said, “Um, NO, OSHA does not have this kind of power, so take your toys and go home.” The case was remanded back to the 6th circuit whether it will either be correctly ruled or it will make its way back to the supreme court.
But, I want to make two last comments before we wrap up. First, there is a domino effect for being active in voting for our leaders. There may be no more important role of the president than to nominate justices to the supreme court and to other federal benches. These choices far outlast the president’s administration and the impacts are felt for decades. President Trump appointed Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett and they all voted that OSHA had vastly over-reached their authority. I cannot stress how important this is.
Secondly, I feel sometimes, Christians fall into the same trap as our liberal friends…we put our hope in government, hope in electing the right leaders, and when it seems hope is running out, we place our last hope in the supreme court. And although SCOTUS rightly ruled on OSHA, I believe they wrongly ruled on HHS’ mandates for healthcare workers. That is why our faith cannot and should not be in the court. Of course we will advocate, champion, conservatism, especially Christian conservatism, but our hope is not in man, or we will always be disappointed in manmade solutions. Our hope is in Christ.
Psalm 121:1-2
I lift up my eyes to the mountains—
where does my help come from?
2 My help comes from the Lord,
the Maker of heaven and earth.
Lord, be attentive to our prayer and may we always look to you for our refuge, our strength, and our hope.
Create your
podcast in
minutes
It is Free