Since some are confused on what the ruling means, I figured I’d give an explanation of the latest ruling out of TX.

We all know SCOTUS ruled in favor of blocking the mandate which would allow OSHA to enforce for employers with 100 plus employees. However, EO 14043 was given the go ahead effecting federal employees. Here’s what happened today.

There was a suit filed by FEDS for Medical Freedom in TX to block both EO’s. Since SCOTUS was already hearing arguments, the Texas filing was pushed back, (IMO) to see what SCOTUS ruled. The first date that was going to be mandatory for federal employees was today. The ruling was also issued today (by a trump appointed judge). He issued an injunction (basically a restraining order against the mandate). Now, it will go through the process and eventually be heard by SCOTUS. Here’s the big take always from his ruling….

The challenges (heard by the case SCOTUS ruled on) fell short due to procedural mis steps or failure to show IMMINENT HARM. (That’s the big one)

The big question is submitting to a vaccine as a condition of employment considered workplace conduct? Here’s where it gets good, with the OSHA ruling, the question was answered in their ruling. SCOTUS clearly defined that since covid is not just in the workplace, it’s not a workplace risk, it’s a universal risk.

The judges take away was that the president has the authority to regulate executive branch policies (Medicare and Medicaid). He does NOT have the authority to regulate employment. That was what SCOTUS said in its ruling.

What this brilliant judge did was wait for SCOTUS’ ruling and turned around to use their own words as a means to block the mandate. It had to be fought like this. These new challenges are where the focus should’ve been. We’ll get there, eventually!!