When the vaccine mandate issue gets to a real court (not a political one) it will fail on the same issue as the affordable care act was slated to fail until Justice Roberts invented his tax argument.

It was held by a majority, including Roberts, that the only basis for federal involvement in health care was the commerce clause but that clause only applied to regulate some type action; in that case the purchase of health insurance. It specifically held that the commerce clause could not be used to regulate (and penalize) inaction, in that case the failure to buy insurance. That is where Roberts invented his tax to substitute for the inability to regulate noncompliance under commerce.

In the case of vaccine mandates, existing Supreme Court precedent would allow the action of taking a vaccine to be regulated under the commerce clause but it would not allow the federal government to regulate or punish a decision to not take that action. Very simple concept. When a person takes some action it can be considered commerce but when they decide to not participate, their non participation is not commerce.

Texas has some very good lawyers and they were at the forefront of the battle against the affordable care act and I am confident they thought this out before the State issued the mandate prohibition. Depending on the judge assigned, they could lose at the district court level but when it gets to the 5th Circuit it should be a slam dunk. I doubt the Supreme Court would even consider it. The problem remains the damage that will be done if a hack political judge at the district court level decides to delay things. The current rogue administration is not even making a pretense at following law.