We’ll have to wait for analysis, but here are three quick tweets from Jonathan Turley:
A quick scan of the opinion—which was delivered Per Curiam—provides this conclusion from Gorsuch’s concurrence (Thomas and Alito joining) which, I think, will in the end fairly sum up the Court’s reasoning as a bottom line:
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.
All in all this is a major victory for our constitutional order, for federalism, for reason.
So medical workers are NOT protected under the SAME CONSTITUTION that protects the rest of society from illegal vaccine mandates?
Why is that? Makes no sense.
Wouldn't it be great if the Court when deciding cases where federal regulations are at issue they first went through the following simple logic:
1) Is the regulation based on specific rule making authority granted by statute? If no the regulation is void, if yes go to 2.
2) Is the statute based on an enumerated power found in the constitution? If no the statute is void, if yes go to 3.
3) Does the statute violate amendment 10? If yes the statute is void, if no the regulation is allowed to be enforced . . . absent other reasons to throw out the regulation.