- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Attorney General challenges the US government's vaccine mandate Lawsuit against President Joe Biden on Covid-19 vaccine for healthcare workers Jeff Landry, the Attorney General of Louisiana and attorney generals of 11 other states have filed a lawsuit against Joe Biden, the President of the United States and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). They have questioned...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
Attorney General challenges the US government's vaccine mandate
Lawsuit against President Joe Biden on Covid-19 vaccine for healthcare workers
Jeff Landry, the Attorney General of Louisiana and attorney generals of 11 other states have filed a lawsuit against Joe Biden, the President of the United States and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). They have questioned their authority to issue a Covid-19 vaccine mandate for healthcare workers. The mandate requires all healthcare workers to be fully vaccinated by January 4, 2022.
The group filed the complaint as a form of federal regulation that violated several statutes as well as the US Constitution.
As per the mandate, each entity receiving federal funding must securely document the vaccination of all staff, including booster shots, or forfeit its federal funding.
Prior to the mandate, President Biden had commented, "Let me be blunt. My plan also takes on elected officials and states that are undermining these life-saving actions. If these governors do not help us beat the pandemic, I shall use my power as President to get them out of the way."
He had assured that his plan "had the federal authority" and that the mandate would stand in covering healthcare workers in hospitals, home healthcare and other medical facilities.
The Biden administration attempted to implement two similar vaccine mandates under different authorities. First, using a workplace safety statute to impose the mandate on 100 million workers (challenged and stayed). Second, using the federal procurement system to impose the mandate on one-fifth of the US workforce (challenged and unresolved).
The vaccine mandate that Landry and other attorney generals challenged required vaccinating 17 million healthcare workers by CMS, though its purpose was to assist the states in financing healthcare services for the needy through federal funding. They argued that failing to comply, the funding would disappear.
CMS has the responsibility for overseeing these programs and promulgating rules to further the functions of the program. It acknowledged that the mandate requiring vaccination was the first of its type. CMS argued that the mandate was grounded in statutory authority and that it was absolutely necessary to the furtherance of healthcare availability.