With the trucking industry now in possession of new federal government guidance stating that the Biden administration’s workplace vaccination/testing rules do not apply to solo truck drivers, the rule is effectively dead for the time being.
The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on Thursday that the rule promulgated by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration cannot be enforced and will most likely be rejected in further court action. Some parts of the mask-wearing rule went into effect on Monday, but its status had been unclear due to a series of previous court battles prior to Thursday’s Supreme Court ruling.
While solo drivers may not have been subject to the mandate, OSHA guidance issued in the last few days made it clear that the rules would apply to team drivers as well. They don’t have to be concerned about them anymore.
The American Trucking Associations, one of the many plaintiffs in the case, applauded the decision.
“Today, ATA has won a tremendous victory on behalf of the trucking industry, as well as workers and employers everywhere,” said ATA CEO and President Chris Spear in a statement. “Today’s Supreme Court decision validates our claim that OSHA far exceeded its authority in issuing an emergency temporary standard that interfered with individuals’ private health care decisions.” Throughout the pandemic, trucking has been on the front lines, delivering PPE, medical supplies, food, clothing, fuel, and even vaccines. Our industry will continue to deliver critical goods as our country recovers from the pandemic and our economy grows as a result of this ruling.”
The Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) proposed by the Biden administration in November would have required COVID-19 vaccinations or a testing regime for employees of companies with 100 or more workers.
“Applicants are likely to prevail on the merits of their claim that [the secretary of labor] lacked authority to impose the mandate,” the court wrote in its decision.
Legally, if the Biden administration pursues the case, it will return to the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, whose previous ruling allowed the OSHA rule that is now stayed.
The unsigned opinion stated that the legislation that established OSHA “typically speaks[s] to hazards that employees face at work.” “No provision of the Act addresses public health in general, which is outside the purview of OSHA.”
“Allowing OSHA to regulate hazards of daily life — simply because most Americans have jobs and face those same risks while on the job — would significantly expand OSHA’s regulatory authority without clear congressional authorization,” the opinion continues.
The court upheld a separate mandate requiring employees at certain health care facilities to be tested or vaccinated.
