Supreme Court Stays Enforcement of OSHA’s COVID-19 Vaccination and Testing ETS
Client Alert | 1 min read | 01.13.22
On January 13, 2022, the Supreme Court granted applicants’ emergency motion to stay enforcement of the Occupational Health and Safety Administration’s (“OSHA”) COVID-19 Vaccination and Testing Emergency Temporary Standard (“ETS”). In its decision, the Court explained that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed in showing that OSHA lacked the statutory authority to mandate “84 million Americans to either obtain a COVID-19 vaccine or undergo weekly medical testing at their own expense.” The Court reasoned that “[a]lthough COVID-19 is a risk that occurs in many workplaces, it is not an occupational hazard in most” and to permit “OSHA to regulate the hazards of daily life . . . would significantly expand OSHA’s regulatory authority without clear congressional authorization.” While the Court acknowledged that OSHA has authority to regulate occupational risks related to COVID-19 where the virus “poses a special danger because of the particular features of an employee’s job or workplace,” it emphasized that OSHA’s “indiscriminate approach” does not consider what is an occupational hazard versus a general risk.
Three justices—Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan—issued a dissenting opinion, arguing that the mandate “falls within the core of the agency’s mission: to ‘protect employees’ from ‘grave danger’ that comes from ‘new hazards’ or exposure to harmful agents.” Moreover, the dissent opined that even if the merits were a close question, the Court should not have issued a stay here because the balance of harms and the public interest do not support such an action since “[t]he lives and health of the Nation’s workers are at stake” and outweigh any potential economic harm.
The Court also issued its decision regarding the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services interim final rule. Unlike with the OSHA ETS, the Court granted the Government’s request to stay two district court decisions enjoining enforcement of the rule.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 4 min read | 08.07.25
On July 25, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued its decision in United States ex. rel. Sedona Partners LLC v. Able Moving & Storage Inc. et al., holding that a district court cannot ignore new factual allegations included in an amended complaint filed by a False Claims Act qui tam relator based on the fact that those additional facts were learned in discovery, even while a motion to dismiss for failure to comply with the heightened pleading standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) is pending. Under Rule 9(b), allegations of fraud typically must include factual support showing the who, what, where, why, and how of the fraud to survive a defendant’s motion to dismiss. And while that standard has not changed, Sedona gives room for a relator to file first and seek out discovery in order to amend an otherwise deficient complaint and survive a motion to dismiss, at least in the Eleventh Circuit. Importantly, however, the Eleventh Circuit clarified that a district court retains the discretion to dismiss a relator’s complaint before or after discovery has begun, meaning that district courts are not required to permit discovery at the pleading stage. Nevertheless, the Sedona decision is an about-face from precedent in the Eleventh Circuit, and many other circuits, where, historically, facts learned during discovery could not be used to circumvent Rule 9(b) by bolstering a relator’s factual allegations while a motion to dismiss was pending. While the long-term effects of the decision remain to be seen, in the short term the decision may encourage relators to engage in early discovery in hopes of learning facts that they can use to survive otherwise meritorious motions to dismiss.
Client Alert | 4 min read | 08.06.25
FinCEN Delays Implementation Date and Reopens AML/CFT Rule for Investment Advisers
Client Alert | 4 min read | 08.06.25
Series of Major Data Breaches Targeting the Insurance Industry
Client Alert | 11 min read | 08.06.25