Current Events > SCOTUS declines to hear case challenging vaccine mandate

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.newsweek.com/supreme-court-covid-vaccine-case-new-jersey-nurses-1843530

The U.S. Supreme Court rejected to hear an appeal relating to COVID-19 vaccine requirements in the workplace, dealing a blow to vaccine skeptics across the nation.

On Tuesday morning, the Supreme Court orders list showed that it was denying to hear any further arguments in the case Katie Sczesny, et al. v. Murphy, Gov. of New Jersey, et al. The case focused on four New Jersey nurses who filed a lawsuit against New Jersey's COVID-19 vaccine requirements in the workplace, citing religious freedom and health concerns.

The Supreme Court did not provide any further explanation for its refusal to hear the case, but the decision allows a ruling in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit to stand. The lower court ruled that the vaccine mandate challenged by the nurses did not violate their Constitutional freedoms and allowed an executive order from New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy to stay in place.

Newsweek reached out to lawyers for the state of New Jersey and Murphy via email for comment.

"We are disappointed the Supreme Court did not take up this issue now, but hope that it will take up this question soon, whether in this case after final judgment or another case. We need our highest Court to provide guidance on this important question of liberty before another pandemic and another emergency vaccine," Dana Wefer, a lawyer for the four nurses who filed the lawsuit, told Newsweek on Tuesday.

The decision by the Supreme Court on Tuesday comes as some Americans have continued to question the effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccine and past requirements for workers to be inoculated during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic.

In April of last year, the four nurses, Katie Sczesny, Jamie Rumfield, Debra Hagen, and Mariette Vitti, filed a lawsuit against the state of New Jersey, arguing that executive orders related to the COVID-19 pandemic and vaccine booster requirements were unconstitutional.

Figures this needs to be booted back up. It means those vaccine mandates for the job are there to stay, and I bet the antivaxxers are gonna be real mad about that one.

The same people who defend mandatory drug testing for weed, at will employment, dress code regulations that are too strict and/or ban certain black hairstyles, and go "their company, their rules" don't like vaccine requirements in healthcare jobs, which is something that can actually affect other people negatively to the point of even death. Add it to the list of conservative hypocrisies that's the size of several phone books put together now.

Why is the Supreme Court allowed to not do its job?

This sounds like a good thing.

Inohira posted...

Why is the Supreme Court allowed to not do its job?

This is them doing their job.

They agree with the lower courts ruling and found the arguments presented in the lower courts to be (not) compelling enough to take up the case.

If they couldn't say no to cases then every case would go to them and at that point, why even have a judicial system if you can just kick everything up to the Supreme Court.

Southernfatman posted...

The same people who defend mandatory drug testing for weed, at will employment, dress code regulations that are too strict and/or ban certain black hairstyles, and go "their company, their rules" don't like vaccine requirements in healthcare jobs, which is something that can actually affect other people negatively to the point of even death. Add it to the list of conservative hypocrisies that's the size of several phone books put together now.

If it hurts others, so be it, if it hurts me, reeeee

Inohira posted...

Why is the Supreme Court allowed to not do its job?

What's the enlightened centrist position on vaccine mandates?

Inohira posted...

Why is the Supreme Court allowed to not do its job?

Declining to hear appeals is part of their job

This takes me back to when the MAGAs were wishing death on Amy Coney Barrett and calling her a plant because she put her foot down on keeping vaccine mandates.

It was the one and only good surprise that came out of her.

They realize now that Americans actually pay attention to their corrupt asses so if they do yet another thing that pisses them off then it galvanizes the Democratic base even more. Trust me, if there ever comes a time where a Republican is in office and they have the senate and a congress lead they'd be dishing out shit rulings left and right knowing by the time reelections happen the public will forget.

I don't support vaccine passports and I think mandates can be a slippery slope but if you're working in healthcare it should 100% be mandated. A lot of provisional stuff is.

Not so fast maybe

https://twitter.com/WeferLawOffices/status/1724273362648568026?t=VyLwS_P2MfTMj-C_Rasnrw&s=19

MistyKnight posted...

Not so fast maybe

https://twitter.com/WeferLawOffices/status/1724273362648568026?t=VyLwS_P2MfTMj-C_Rasnrw&s=19

Can anti vaxxers just fuck off already

brestugo posted...

We need our highest Court to provide guidance on this important question of liberty before another pandemic and another emergency vaccine

Kinda seems like they just did, doesn't it? Seems to me like they just told you (I'm paraphrasing here) "get stuck or get fucked, bitches."

I've read the bible and nowhere does it say "Thou shall not take vaccinations against viruses that can kill people."

So the whole "religious freedom" idiocy makes no sense.

MistyKnight posted...

Not so fast maybe

https://twitter.com/WeferLawOffices/status/1724273362648568026?t=VyLwS_P2MfTMj-C_Rasnrw&s=19

Womp womp

wackyteen posted...

This is them doing their job.

They agree with the lower courts ruling and found the arguments presented in the lower courts to be (not) compelling enough to take up the case.

If they couldn't say no to cases then every case would go to them and at that point, why even have a judicial system if you can just kick everything up to the Supreme Court.

Same goes for lower courts and plea deals. People dont realise that if there were no plea deals and everything was forced to be heard, the system (overloaded as it already is) would crash overnight.

BurmesePenguin posted...

This sounds like a good thing.

It's straightforward logic. The Preamble to the Constitution states one of the purposes of the US government is to promote "the general welfare" of the people.

If there's evidence that vaccines work - and there overwhelmingly is - then a vaccine mandate, especially during a pandemic, is easily defensible under that clause of the Constitution.

In declining to hear the case, the SCOTUS just reaffirmed basic Constitutional law.