Several Republican Attorney Generals Say There Is No Federal Vaccine Mandate for Private Workers, Vow to Sue

Several Republican attorneys general have said that President Joe Biden’s federal mandate for COVID-19 vaccinations hasn’t yet come into effect for private businesses, adding that if it is ordered, they will file lawsuits against it.

Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen, a Republican, noted that the White House only last week submitted the text of its emergency rule regarding vaccinations to the Office of Management and Budget, meaning it hasn’t gone into effect.

But, Knudsen noted that “no such rule or regulation is currently in effect,” adding (pdf) that there has been a “great deal of confusion” over Biden’s announcement last month.

“Further, my office is preparing to immediately challenge and enjoin this federal overreach on a variety of grounds when the Biden administration issues its announced rule,” he said.

On Sept. 9, Biden announced that he would direct the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to mandate that all private businesses with 100 or more employees force their workers to get vaccinated or submit to weekly testing. Details about the rule, including fines, have not been released, and White House press secretary Jen Psaki couldn’t answer questions earlier this month about a timeframe on when it would be unveiled.

Oklahoma Attorney General John O’Connor, also a Republican, announced Thursday that there is no federal rule mandating employers to require their workers to get the shots. As a result, he noted that Biden’s announcement should be ignored by employers until a rule is implemented.

“I urge Oklahoma employers to disregard the Biden Administration’s wishes to the contrary,” O’Connor said in a statement. “In the event federal emergency rules are issued that place such an unlawful demand upon employers, our office will be joined by other state Attorneys General across the country to quickly sue and seek an injunction against any implementation or enforcement.”

-- Until the rule is in effect, and enforcement starts, there is no standing to sue. --

Technically, the principle you describe is "ripe," not "standing."

Standing in on WHO is damaged, not WHEN.

On law in general, cases before damage are common. Stop the Keystone pipeline, stop the order before it goes into effect, etc. - restraining orders in general are pre-effect.

The so-called law on the vaccine mandate cases will be whatever the judge's bias is. There are examples on both sides of the decision. This is a "rule of man" issue, not a rule of law issue. The judges will smugly hide behind rhetoric and claim "the law allows no other decision."

Yes, there should be more action to prevent companies from terminating people, but I think this should start with employees filing wrongful termination lawsuits. The states can investigate companies and should--some have laws to protect employees from mandates, let's see some action there--e.g., Texas.

States should be more aggressively setting out worker protection and guidance to companies against mandates, especially where there are no approved drugs. It is wrong to say there is one, which turns out to not be in production and not available in the US.

States could more aggressively aid in helping with religious and medical exemptions--our civil rights, our medical privacy, and our medical choice.

Yes, they need to do more and their inaction speaks volumes. These discussion of lawsuits is a bit of CYA.

These occurred:

The press conference on the businesses with 100 + employees

The EO regarding fed workers

The EO regarding fed contractors

And after all of these 3 events, private companies, fed departments, and fed contractors began mandating shot status disclosures and shot deadlines, and firing those who didn’t disclose and get shots.

So, a lot happened and is happening; grounds for many lawsuits.

HIPPA is to protect the employer, not the employee.

The employer is under no obligation to keep any and all health information private.

Huh? Actually, HIPAA is to protect the consumers' or employees' information, not the employer or business. Certain business entities that retain PHI (protected health info) CANNOT disclose said information to third parties. If your employer is not a covered entity under HIPAA, or what happened wasn't a HIPAA-related occurrence at their business, then HIPAA doesn't apply to the employer.

Now if your employer was a hospital, and your daughter was born there/in their NICU, then yes, you'd probably have a HIPAA case. But outside of that specific circumstance, HIPAA would most likely not apply.

Side note, I fail to see how your daughter having been in the NICU would be detrimental to you and potential employers...? How is that even related?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.