If I can find the case you’re talking about, I’ll let you know. The only older case that springs to mind is the 2012 Parker v. St. Lawrence County case, that had to do with interpreting the PREP act in the H1N1 vaccination context. But that one doesn’t seem to list the standards for vaccine approvals.
Most of the other cases I’ve cited are still pending resolution.
If I can find the case you’re talking about, I’ll let you know. The only older case that springs to mind is the 2012 Parker v. St. Lawrence County case, that had to do with interpreting the PREP act in the H1N1 vaccination context. But that one doesn’t seem to list the standards for vaccine approvals.
Most of the other cases I’ve cited are still pending resolution.
I’m not familiar enough with it to know. I don’t think there are any other court cases specific to vaccines, though. That’s why all the mandaters point to that one.
A few other places you may want to look for court case citations about those prongs:
2021/04/02 - Congressional Research Service Opinion: State and Federal Authority to Mandate COVID-19 Vaccination (14 pages)
That one was written before the two Jan. 2022 US Supreme Court cases, in which USSC found OSHA mandate not lawful —
National Federation of Independent Businesses v. Department of Labor Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA); Ohio v. OSHA. Consolidated 21A244 and 21A247 at US Supreme Court (595 US___ 2022).
— but CMS mandate was lawful —
Missouri v. Biden, USDC Eastern Missouri (2021 WL 5564501) and Louisiana v. Becerra, USDC Western Louisiana (2021 WL 5609846), appealed by Biden Administration to 5th and 8th Circuit Courts of Appeals. Consolidated 21A240 and 21A241 at US Supreme Court (595 U.S.__ 2022).
Of note, the USSC did not address constitutional issues in either ruling; both were statutory/regulatory only. Dissent in the CMS case has some interesting stuff.
2021/07/06 - DOJ Opinion: Whether Section 564 of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act Prohibits Entities from Requiring the Use of a Vaccine Subject to an Emergency Use Authorization (18 pages). This one cited summer 2021 Bridges v. Houston Methodist Hospital case out of Texas.
This one incorporated the US Supreme Court rulings from Jan. 2022.
A 1985 case, Garcia v. San Antonio Transit Authority, was cited by CJ John Roberts in South Bay United Pentecostal v. Newsom (May 2020), for the principle that judges shouldn’t second-guess executive and legislative exercise of emergency powers.
From the 46-page Congressional Research Service opinion, regarding the OSHA case:
“In the dissent’s view, OSHA lacked statutory authority to issue the ETS because the agency did not appropriately establish the standard’s “necessity” or the existence of a “grave danger” in the workplace. According to the dissent, an ETS is “necessary” within the meaning of Section 6(c) only if it is an “indispensable” means of addressing COVID-19 in the workplace.195 Because OSHA “failed to explore whether other feasible alternatives would have allowed [it] to tackle the problem,” the dissent reasoned that the agency cannot show the ETS was “necessary” for purposes of Section 6(c)”
If I can find the case you’re talking about, I’ll let you know. The only older case that springs to mind is the 2012 Parker v. St. Lawrence County case, that had to do with interpreting the PREP act in the H1N1 vaccination context. But that one doesn’t seem to list the standards for vaccine approvals.
Most of the other cases I’ve cited are still pending resolution.
Was it Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905)?
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/197/11/
That’s the main case all the mask and vaxx mandaters cite.
I’m not familiar enough with it to know. I don’t think there are any other court cases specific to vaccines, though. That’s why all the mandaters point to that one.
A few other places you may want to look for court case citations about those prongs:
2021/04/02 - Congressional Research Service Opinion: State and Federal Authority to Mandate COVID-19 Vaccination (14 pages)
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46745/3
That one was written before the two Jan. 2022 US Supreme Court cases, in which USSC found OSHA mandate not lawful —
National Federation of Independent Businesses v. Department of Labor Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA); Ohio v. OSHA. Consolidated 21A244 and 21A247 at US Supreme Court (595 US___ 2022).
— but CMS mandate was lawful —
Missouri v. Biden, USDC Eastern Missouri (2021 WL 5564501) and Louisiana v. Becerra, USDC Western Louisiana (2021 WL 5609846), appealed by Biden Administration to 5th and 8th Circuit Courts of Appeals. Consolidated 21A240 and 21A241 at US Supreme Court (595 U.S.__ 2022).
Of note, the USSC did not address constitutional issues in either ruling; both were statutory/regulatory only. Dissent in the CMS case has some interesting stuff.
2021/07/06 - DOJ Opinion: Whether Section 564 of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act Prohibits Entities from Requiring the Use of a Vaccine Subject to an Emergency Use Authorization (18 pages). This one cited summer 2021 Bridges v. Houston Methodist Hospital case out of Texas.
https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opinions/attachments/2021/07/26/2021-07-06-mand-vax.pdf
2022/02/07 - Congressional Research Service Opinion: State and Federal Authority to Mandate COVID-19 Vaccination. Update to 4/2/21 version. (46 pages)
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46745
This one incorporated the US Supreme Court rulings from Jan. 2022.
A 1985 case, Garcia v. San Antonio Transit Authority, was cited by CJ John Roberts in South Bay United Pentecostal v. Newsom (May 2020), for the principle that judges shouldn’t second-guess executive and legislative exercise of emergency powers.
From the 46-page Congressional Research Service opinion, regarding the OSHA case:
“In the dissent’s view, OSHA lacked statutory authority to issue the ETS because the agency did not appropriately establish the standard’s “necessity” or the existence of a “grave danger” in the workplace. According to the dissent, an ETS is “necessary” within the meaning of Section 6(c) only if it is an “indispensable” means of addressing COVID-19 in the workplace.195 Because OSHA “failed to explore whether other feasible alternatives would have allowed [it] to tackle the problem,” the dissent reasoned that the agency cannot show the ETS was “necessary” for purposes of Section 6(c)”
Referring to 29 U.S.C. § 655(c) of OSH Act.