Breaking: Supreme Court nixes Biden Covid vaccine mandate


The United States Supreme Court has stopped President Joe Biden from having his agencies enforce his vaccine mandate for employees of businesses that have more than 100 workers.

The mandate, which came from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, forced everyone to be vaccinated or undergo weekly testing and wear a mask during work hours.

But the court allowed the Biden Administration to enforce the Covid vaccination mandate on most health care workers. the Biden administration from enforcing a requirement that employees at large businesses be vaccinated against COVID-19 or undergo weekly testing and wear a mask on the job.

“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 decision says.

“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 majority concluded.

At the same time, the court is allowing the administration to proceed with a vaccine mandate for most health care workers in the U.S. Only those that don’t receive federal funds are exempt from the mandate, an exemption that applies primarily to concierge doctors who see the wealthiest people in America and accept no Medicare or Medicaid patients.

The court issued the orders on Friday, with the court’s conservatives saying the Administration has overstepped its authority.

Read the court order here. The vote in the employer mandate case was 6 to 3, with liberal justices Sonia Sotomayor, Stephen Breyer, and Elena Kagan dissenting.

Read the court decision on the healthcare worker mandate here.

The vote in the health care case was 5 to 4, with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh joining Sotomayor, Breyer, and Kagan in the majority.

This is a breaking story and will be updated.


  1. Interesting. The law, apparently, applies unequally to some and not to others. Be interesting to see how the Court justifies that. Of course, they’ve been doing that ever since they declared W President.

    • Homo, what is it like being so misinformed and stupid all the while thinking that you are well informed and smart? Is it like like dropping a double hit of windowpane or wrapping yourself around a bowl of Afghan black hash?

    • Homo is no genius as to how the law works, or, to how the reality of logic applies. The US SCt stated that Biden’s agency has no statutory authority to mandate a Covid shot as a condition of employment. The illigetimate Biden’s attempt to further his unlawful control over Americans…….hereby ……FAILS.

  2. Good decision, limiting the scope and powers of unelected bureaucrats. And quite a surprise to see Sotomayor on the majority with this decision, given the grossly inaccurate numbers she was spouting during discussion. That means something significant… she’s not just stuck in a liberal rut. Good for her.

  3. “Only those that don’t receive federal funds are exempt from the mandate, an exemption that applies primarily to concierge doctors who see the wealthiest people in America and accept no Medicare or Medicaid patients.”

    What is the implication here, Suzanne?

    Concierge or independent doctors are the only doctors left who can operate freely in the U.S., without being constrained by onerous hospital policies and, if refusing Medicare and Medicaid, onerous federal regulations.

    We NEED free-standing, independent doctors in the U.S.!

    • Considering the extent to which others bled for him in securing his confirmation, he has been a disappointment so far. He still has some time, but he is looking more like a swamp reptile like Roberts and Souter.

  4. Color me shocked on the striking down of the jab mandate on all 100-employee businesses. It is very disappointing, however, that they upheld the mandate on workers in the medical-industrial complex.

    • Jeff,
      How’s that hat tasting? Remember this?
      JEFFERSON / DECEMBER 18, 2021
      Steve, if you think that the Supreme Court (what the hell is “SCOTUS”?) is going to overturn this ruling from the Sixth Circuit Court, and definitively overturn Pretendent PotatoHead’s unconstitutional and evil mandate, you are dreaming. The Supreme Court in the last 20+ has almost NEVER ruled in favor of the individual, and has in almost every case upheld the power of the (expansive) federal government..
      If the Supreme Court does NOT uphold the mandate, I will eat my hat. But let’s just say I am not getting the ketchup ready.

      • Yes, I just admitted that I am surprised by this turn of events, SteveO.
        But it was a qualified win for freedom, as the clot shot mandate for workers in the medical-industrial complex was upheld, as it is also for all those in the military.

  5. What a win!Come on ppl don’t just jump to the next problem or issue, soak it up a little and enjoy the victory!
    We won’t win every battle but the wars not over yet either, take the wins when you get them.
    In time all truth will be revealed.
    Shoutout to Dunleavy’s Administration for jumping into the fight to defend Alaskan’s. I was proud to see Alaska was one of the states fighting against this.

  6. These are going to be some interesting decisions to read. The Healthcare worker mandate with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh reasonings specifically. I knew the OSHA mandate would be struck down, but figured even a liberal judge would see it for the unconstitutional overreach it was, then Sotomayor and Breyer opened their mouths during the hearing…

  7. Seems like a discrimination case to allow the mandates on healthcare workers…they should be given the same rights as any other worker who is allowed to refuse the vaccine (experimental therapy) based on religious or philosophical beliefs.

    • And who exactly would you bring that discrimination case to? The supreme Court? I’m not sure what your mouth about this time but you totally put your foot in your mouth.

    • Yes, and further: Why the stay on the OSHA case but not so on the HHS case? Forcing someone to accept a substance be put in their bodies is either unconstitutional or not. Therefore, the were making a medical ruling–something, given the “wise latina’s” ill constructed remarks–they are clearly not equipped to do. Nor should they.

  8. This shows you the hypocrisy in our courts. How on God’s green earth can you say you weighed this decision on a constitutional level? You go and tell the Biden Regime you can’t mandate this to businesses but stab our healthcare workers in the back making the argument that HHS has the authority to make mandates due to Federal Funding? What a load of you know what! The SPOTUS just took a knife to your Constitutional rights folks. The healthcare side of this decision just gave government agencies the authority to rule over your physical autonomy and your ability to hold a job in the medical industry unless they can jab you with an experimental vaccine that doesn’t do what they said it would do and you can’t even get a safety data sheet from the pharmacist on this poison! The Judges that just stabbed every healthcare worker in the back saying you have no rights not only ignored the Nuremburg Accords, they completely cast off the current data on these vaccines showing they are harmful to humans! They are complicit in a crime against humanity!

  9. This was one of the better lines from the majority decision of the OSHA case:
    “On the one hand, OSHA claims the power to issue a nationwide mandate on a major question but cannot trace its authority to do so to any clear congressional mandate. On the other hand, if the statutory subsection the agency cites really did endow OSHA with the power it asserts, that law would likely constitute an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority.”
    The majority decision from the OSHA case concludes:
    “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. In saying this much, we do not impugn the intentions behind the agency’s mandate. Instead, we only discharge our duty to enforce the law’s demands when it comes to the question who may govern the lives of 84 million Americans. Respecting those demands may be trying in times of stress. But if this Court were to abide them only in more tranquil conditions, declarations of emergencies would never end and the liberties our Constitution’s separation of powers seeks to preserve would amount to little.”
    There were some mildly compelling arguments from the minority, but they largely fall flat with claims they fail to back up with anything of substance or they simply disregard precedent. One of the biggest problems is they do not seem to understand what OSHA does, they certainly do not understand what “substances” or “agents” are in the context of the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OSHA). At one point they conflate a “new agent” with a “new virus”.

    • The Healthcare worker mandate decision is a good read. I went in thinking the majority decision would hold with my understanding of the case and that those Healthcare workers in a workplace receiving federal funds through Medicare and Medicaid would be required to be vaccinated. While this is what the majority held in their decision, the minority dissent makes a good case against the decision.
      The most compelling argument from the majority was:
      “Congress has authorized the Secretary to impose conditions on the receipt of Medicaid and Medicare funds that “the Secretary finds necessary in the interest of the health and safety of individuals who are furnished services.” COVID–19 is a highly contagious, dangerous, and—especially for Medicare and Medicaid patients—deadly disease. The Secretary of Health and Human Services determined that a COVID–19 vaccine man- date will substantially reduce the likelihood that healthcare workers will contract the virus and transmit it to their patients.”
      The majority decision concludes:
      “The challenges posed by a global pandemic do not allow a federal agency to exercise power that Congress has not conferred upon it. At the same time, such unprecedented circumstances provide no grounds for limiting the exercise of authorities the agency has long been recognized to have.”
      However, after excoriating the government argument claiming the Secretary of Health and Human Services was acting within Congressionally approved authority by using statutory language found in only one facility-specific provision that regulates long-term care facilities and mandates an “infection control program” among its “health and safety” provisions, while those infection control provision focus only on sanitizing the facilities’ “environment,” not its personnel; ​Justice Thomas writing the minority dissent says:
      “Finally, our precedents confirm that the Government has failed to make a strong showing on the merits. “We expect Congress to speak clearly when authorizing an agency to exercise powers of vast economic and political significance.” And we expect Congress to use “exceedingly clear language if it wishes to significantly alter the balance between state and federal power.” The omnibus rule is undoubtedly significant—it requires millions of healthcare workers to choose between losing their livelihoods and acquiescing to a vaccine they have rejected for months. Vaccine mandates also fall squarely within a State’s police power, see Zucht v. King, 260 U. S. 174, 176 (1922), and, until now, only rarely have been a tool of the Federal Government. If Congress had wanted to grant CMS authority to impose a nationwide vaccine mandate, and consequently alter the state-federal balance, it would have said so clearly. It did not.”
      Justice Thomas concludes by saying:
      “These cases are not about the efficacy or importance of COVID–19 vaccines. They are only about whether CMS has the statutory authority to force healthcare workers, by coercing their employers, to undergo a medical procedure they do not want and cannot undo. Because the Government has not made a strong showing that Congress gave CMS that broad authority, I would deny the stays pending appeal. I respectfully dissent.”

Comments are closed.