OSHA Withdraws Its COVID-19 Vaccination and Testing ETS Effective January 26, 2022
Client Alert | 1 min read | 01.25.22
Following the Supreme Court’s granting of the emergency motion to stay enforcement of the Occupational Health and Safety Administration’s (“OSHA”) COVID-19 Vaccination and Testing Emergency Temporary Standard (“ETS”) on January 13, 2022 (which we previously covered here), OSHA announced on January 25, 2022 that it is withdrawing the ETS as an enforceable emergency temporary standard, effective January 26, 2022, and will instead prioritize its resources on finalizing a permanent COVID-19 Healthcare Standard, per OSHA’s statement on its website. OSHA noted that it is not withdrawing the ETS as a proposed rule, which will continue to work its way through the ongoing notice and comment rulemaking process.
According to the Federal Register notice, OSHA is not providing an opportunity for public comment on this withdrawal. It also notes that states with their own OSHA-approved occupational safety and health plans are not required to take any action in response to this withdrawal.
In light of this development, the Government filed a motion to dismiss the petitions challenging the ETS before the Sixth Circuit as moot.
OSHA emphasized that it still strongly encourages the vaccination of workers against COVID-19 notwithstanding the withdrawal of the rule.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.12.25
Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality
On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument.
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.11.25
Director Squires Revamps the Workings of the U.S. Patent Office
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.10.25
Creativity You Can Use: CJEU Clarifies Copyright for Applied Art
Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.10.25
Federal Court Strikes Down Interior Order Suspending Wind Energy Development
