In the fall of 2021, the Biden administration directed the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), an administrative agency, to develop a set of emergency rules to address the effects of COVID-19 in the workplace. The agency, utilizing an "emergency temporary standard," enacted a set of mandates requiring that all employers with more than 100 employees to either 1) ensure that all employees were vaccinated, or alternatively 2) require all workers who were not vaccinated to test weekly, and wear a mask. Employers who failed to comply with the ETS rules would be subject to fines of up to $13,000 per violation.Soon after OSHA released the rules, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals stayed the enforcement of the OSHA rules, declaring the rules to be an improper use of agency authority. The Court questioned whether COVID-19 presented a "grave danger" needed to justify the ETS, largely because vaccines were widely available, and the pandemic had been ongoing for 2 years. The court also found the rules improperly overinclusive, because of it's application to employers and employees in any workplace in America with more than 100 employees, regardless of the nature of the workplace, and simultaneously underinclusive, because it does not apply to employers with 99 employees or less. Reasoning that the ETS is a broad power that should be carefully wielded, the court found that "rather than a delicately handled scalpel, the Mandate is a one-size-fits-all sledgehammer that makes hardly any attempt to account for differences in workplaces (and workers) that have more than a little bearing on workers' varying degrees of susceptibility to the supposedly 'grave danger' the Mandate purports to address." The court gave the example of a long-distance truck driver working for a trucking company with more than 100 employees who would be required to be vaccinated or masked, even though his daily work was completely solitary, versus a factory worker in a factory with fewer than 100 employees, who stands shoulder to shoulder in close proximity to co-workers daily, who would not be required to be vaccinated or masked.The OSHA rules were the subject of multiple lawsuits nationwide, and these lawsuits were consolidated into one matter to be heard by the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals. The Sixth Circuit disagreed with the finding of the 5th circuit, instead determining that OSHA has the authority to protect workers against infectious disease, and that the agency had properly exercised that authority in earlier situations (for example, bloodborne pathogens like HIV.) In upholding the OSHA rules, the court found that the "vaccine or test mandate" was necessary to curtail the further spread of COVID-19, both in the workplace, and to the general public.Because of the conflict between the 5th and 6th Circuits, the United States Supreme Court agreed to hear this matter, with oral arguments scheduled for January 7th. The Court ruled on this on January 13th. The following articles will explain the ruling to some extent.U.S. Supreme Court blocks Biden vaccine-or-test policy for large businesses | Reuters (Links to an external site.)Supreme Court blocks Biden OSHA vaccine mandate, allows rule for health care workers | Fox Business (Links to an external site.)Supreme Court blocks Biden's Covid requirements for businesses, upholds health care workers mandate (nbcnews.com) (Links to an external site.)(Links to an external site.)

Do you believe that it is within the scope an administrative agency's power to issue a "vaccine or test" mandate that would affect approximately 80 million US workers? Do you agree with the reasoning of the 5th Circuit, or the 6th Circuit? Why, or why not?