Supreme Court Justices Learn More Conservative During Biden Mandate Case

(FreedomBeacon.com)- There are two separate cases in front of the Supreme Court right now dealing with COVID-19 mandates set by the Biden administration.

While the cases certainly are similar, there are big enough differences between the two that the high court could end up ruling in Biden’s favor in one case and against him in another.

The first rule that’s being challenged revolves around a rule that’s being enforced by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) that would impose a “vaccine-or-test mandate” on private industries. Any company that has at last 100 employees would have to abide by this mandate, which requires employees to either be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 or undergo testing on a weekly basis.

There are many petitioners that are challenging this case.

The other challenge in question was a rule that’s being enacted by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). That specific mandate would require all workers at health-care facilities that participate in either the Medicaid or Medicare programs to be fully vaccinated. They can apply for a religious or medical exemption, but there is no other option to test.

Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, told The Daily Wire recently that the justices had “markedly different” responses during hearings on these cases, which could indicate the challengers to the mandate from OSHA could be successful.

As he explained:

The tenor and questions of the conservative justices were markedly different on the second argument dealing with health care facilities. Notably, the conservative justices were far more restrained in the second case in their questions.

“The nexus between the mandate and health regulations appeared more discernible for key members like Chief Justice [John] Roberts. Indeed, conservative justices pressed on standing questions, which is often a sign that some might be looking for an exit ramp.”

That being said, during oral arguments in the OSHA case, justices seemed to be skeptical of the constitutionality of the emergency rule that’s being put in place. Turley labeled the justices as a “more active and skeptical bench” in that case.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, for instance, pressured attorneys for OSHA on whether Congress actually gave the agency the explicit authority to enact such a rule at all for vaccines. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, meanwhile, asked when the labeled “emergency” would come to an end.

Because of this, Turley believed that there was more hope for the challengers of the OSHA case than the HHS case. As he explained:

“There is more reason for the challengers to be hopeful in the first rather than the second argument. Of course, predicting outcomes from oral argument is a precarious practice, but we may have some indication soon in the form of an administrative stay in the OSHA case if a majority has formed in favor of the challengers.”

Both of these court cases will have wide-reaching effects on millions of workers throughout America, regardless of how the justices ultimately rule.