On January 31, 2020, a public health emergency was declared by the Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary in response to the 2019 coronavirus (Covid-19) outbreak. Covid-19 is caused by the coronavirus known as SARS-CoV-2. In response to the public health emergency, several vaccines are being developed and have proven to be effective in combating the spread of the virus.
In response to the pandemic and the effectiveness of the vaccine, the Biden Administration restricted Medicaid and Medicare funding stating “to receive funding covered entities must ensure that their staff-unless exempt for medical or religious reasons are vaccinated against Covid-19 [1]”. On November 5, 2021, the Secretary of HHS issued this interim final rule.
Two groups of States sought preliminary injunctions against the vaccine mandate because the HHS secretary issued this interim final rule without the standard notice and comment period after finding “good cause.” The injunctions were issued by two District Courts. The Secretary of HHS requested a stay of the injunctions. The Supreme Court reviewed the request and granted the stay.
In Biden vs. Missouri, the Supreme Court held that “the Secretary of HHS routinely imposed conditions of participation that relate to the qualifications and duties of health care workers.” Further stating there has always been a long-standing tradition that health care workers receive their necessary vaccinations before interacting with patients.
The authority cited by the Biden Administration in enforcing a vaccine mandate for health care workers is that “as may be necessary to the efficient administration of the functions with which [he] is charged [2].” Specifically highlighting the core principle of HHS which is to protect a patient’s health and safety.
The Court states: “the [d]ata shows that Covid-19 “can spread rapidly among health care workers and that such spread is more likely when health care workers are unvaccinated [3].” The Secretary determined a vaccine mandate “will substantially reduce the likelihood that health care workers will contract the virus and transmit it to their patients [4].”
The Supreme Court reviewed the challenge to the preliminary injunctions by an arbitrary and capricious standard. The Supreme Court notes “the role of courts in reviewing arbitrary and capricious challenges is to ‘simply ensure that the agency has acted within a zone of reasonableness’ in issuing the rule and that it is not baseless.
In determining that the interim rule is not arbitrary and capricious the Court noted that “the Secretary examined the relevant data and articulated a satisfactory explanation“ of principle in imposing the vaccine mandate. Further concluding limiting the exercise of authority the Secretary has long had would be unsubstantiated, especially during a pandemic.
This opinion places a different perspective on the perception of government intrusion when it comes to a vaccine mandate because the authority granted to the HHS Secretary is clearly defined, especially during a public health emergency.
[1] Biden v. Missouri, 595 U.S. (2022).
[2] Id.
[3] Id.
[4] Id.
