U.S. Supreme Court. Biden Business Vaccine Policy. Awaiting Supreme Court Ruling

Published in Government Relations on January 10, 2022

 (*) UPDATED January 10, 2022 – Awaiting Supreme Court Ruling

With over 100,000 Americans hospitalized for COVID-19 as a result of the highly contagious Omicron variant, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments Friday in two sets of challenges to the Biden administration’s authority to take action to combat the pandemic. In the first case, National Federation of Independent Business v. Department of Labor, the justices will consider the Biden administration’s attempt to impose a vaccine-or-test mandate for workers at large employers. In the second case, Biden v. Missouri, they considered a vaccine mandate for health care workers at facilities that receive federal funding.

The Issues:

  • Cases test presidential powers to act against pandemic
  • Shots or tests required at companies with 100-plus workers
  • Vaccines needed at facilities that take Medicare, Medicaid

Friday Summary – Oral Arguments

Conservative U.S. Supreme Court justices on Friday questioned the legality of President Joe Biden's pandemic-related vaccine-or-testing mandate for large businesses but appeared more receptive to his administration's vaccine requirement for healthcare facilities at a time of surging COVID-19 cases.

The court's nine justices, who are all vaccinated, heard more than 3-1/2 hours of arguments in two cases that test presidential powers to combat the public health emergency.  The conservative justices, who hold a 6-3 majority, signaled sympathy toward arguments by the state of Ohio and a business group that the federal workplace safety agency that issued the rule affecting businesses with at least 100 workers - a policy requiring vaccines or weekly COVID-19 tests for more than 80 million employees - overstepped its legal authority.

The challengers asked the court to block the policy before the administration begins enforcement on January 10. 

The court's conservatives suggested that the 1970 law that created the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) did not authorize this type of broad emergency action.

They seemed more open to a separate federal vaccine requirement that states led by Missouri and Louisiana are asking the court to block nationwide. It covers an estimated 10.3 million workers at about 76,000 healthcare facilities including hospitals and nursing homes that accept money from the Medicare and Medicaid government health insurance programs for elderly, disabled and low-income Americans.

The conservative justices have shown skepticism toward sweeping actions by federal agencies in past rulings.

The three liberal justices indicated that both policies were justified during a pandemic showing no signs of abating, with an upswing in COVID-19 cases driven by the fast-spreading Omicron coronavirus variant.  Chief Justice John Roberts and fellow conservative Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh indicated that the OSHA rule could be invalid under a legal doctrine that says Congress must provide a clear statement on a specific issue in order for a federal agency to issue broad regulations on it.

The conservative justices suggested Congress or individual states would be better suited to act.  Roberts voiced doubt that the law passed by Congress establishing OSHA empowered it to take such action.

Some justices raised the possibility of the court issuing a temporary stay blocking the OSHA rule while the court decides how to proceed.

Roberts and Kavanaugh appeared more sympathetic to the Biden administration's arguments regarding the healthcare facilities mandate issued by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), the agency responsible for administering those programs.

Kavanaugh noted that private healthcare providers did not challenge the mandate that states are contesting. Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett suggested the government could require vaccinations in certain facilities but not others.

Gorsuch seemed skeptical of the policy as a whole, questioning whether CMS has the authority to issue a vaccine regulation because such action affects an employer's staffing decisions, which Congress has said the agency could not do as part of its Medicaid and Medicare funding requirements.

Decisions in both cases are expected quickly.  Upon the ruling, VGM will immediately distribute summaries and analysis.  

Also, please note map and chart which describes each state’s latest emergency orders and actions designed to safeguard residents during the COVID-19 pandemic, including statewide mask requirements and travel advisories.

For additional detail and background, please click here.


TAGS

  1. phe
  2. vgm government

From Our Experts

The Return of Competitive Bidding thumbnail The Return of Competitive Bidding The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) appear to be laying the groundwork for another round of the Competitive Bidding Program (CBP). While full implementation will take a couple of years, an official announcement is expected this summer—potentially as early as July. Out With The Old RAC, In With The New thumbnail Out With The Old RAC, In With The New On April 28, 2025, CMS awarded Cotiviti GOV Services LLC, the new RAC Recovery Audit Contractor (RAC) Region 3, 4, and 5 contracts. RAC Region 3 includes the following Medicare Administrative Contractor (MAC) jurisdictions: JJ, JM, and JN. RAC Region 4 includes jurisdictions: JE, JF, and JL. And RAC Region 5 includes jurisdictions: JA, JB, JC, JD, as well as the HH/H MACs: J6, J15, JK, and JM. Iowa Leads the Charge! All Four Representatives Back H.R. 2005—Will Your State Step Up? thumbnail Iowa Leads the Charge! All Four Representatives Back H.R. 2005—Will Your State Step Up? At VGM Group, Inc. we have the pleasure of serving our members and partners throughout the country.  One of the many ways we do this is through legislative advocacy, working with our partners to create a more equitable and effective healthcare system. All our VGM units are dedicated to advancing our partners' businesses, streamlining operations, and working every day to enhance reimbursement for the quality in-home healthcare our industry provides all people. Mike Hamilton Of ADMEA Honored With The Mal Mixon Advocate Award thumbnail Mike Hamilton Of ADMEA Honored With The Mal Mixon Advocate Award Last week, during the 2025 AAHomecare Washington Legislative Conference, Mike Hamilton, Executive Director of ADMEA, was honored with the prestigious Mal Mixon Advocate Award. VGM Senior Leaders Engage in Advocacy at AAHomecare Legislative Conference thumbnail VGM Senior Leaders Engage in Advocacy at AAHomecare Legislative Conference This week, VGM leaders attended the AAHomecare Legislative Conference in Washington, D.C., a premier event dedicated to advancing healthcare policy and advocacy. AAHomecare provided attendees with valuable insights, equipping them with key discussion points and strategies for effective meetings with legislators. Champion of Change: Paula Vineyard of Elana Health & Loop Medical Leads Healthcare Advocacy in West Virginia thumbnail Champion of Change: Paula Vineyard of Elana Health & Loop Medical Leads Healthcare Advocacy in West Virginia On Thursday, May 8, Paula Vineyard, owner of Elana Health & Loop Medical, took a pivotal step in healthcare advocacy by hosting a meeting with Tyler Ohrn, Field Representative for Congresswoman Carol Miller of West Virginia's First District. The hour-long discussion centered on the pressing need for congressional support of H.R. 2005. Manufacturer Survey On Tariffs thumbnail Manufacturer Survey On Tariffs The American Association for Homecare and VGM Group are seeking valuable insights from durable medical equipment, prosthetics, orthotics, and supplies (DMEPOS) manufacturers and vendor partners regarding tariffs imposed on certain countries. Key Payers Denied Your Application Citing Their Network Is Closed – Now What? thumbnail Key Payers Denied Your Application Citing Their Network Is Closed – Now What? This experience has increasingly become one of the most common questions we receive from our provider members as more and more payers move to narrow their provider networks. The reasons payers seek to narrow their networks are simple. Payers are highly motivated to achieve their goals while doing less work and are not required to allow providers into their networks unless there is a patient access issue. For those of you fortunate enough to be a part of a narrow network, this may not be much of