Thursday, 2/10: A federal judge in Tampa heard a lawsuit brought by military members to stop the military vaccine mandate.
Wednesday, 2/9: The Fifth Circuit denied the federal government’s request for a stay to the nationwide preliminary injunction issued by a district judge suspending enforcement of the federal employee vaccination mandate.
Tuesday, 2/8: Connecticut teachers sued the Governor and the Department of Public Health Commissioner over testing requirements.
Tuesday, 2/8: Plaintiffs suing New Orleans Mayor LaToya Cantrell over her city’s COVID-19 mandates have asked the Louisiana Supreme Court to take up their case without delay and issue a temporary restraining order on vaccination and indoor masking requirements.
Friday, 2/4: Sixteen states filed suit to stop the federal vaccine mandate for healthcare workers before the next compliance deadline goes into effect next week.
Friday, 2/4: A federal judge in Denver dismissed a lawsuit brought by contractors against the city for its vaccine mandate for city employees.
Spotlight: Austin v. Pritzker (Case No. 2021-CH-500002)
On Monday, February 7, an Illinois Circuit judge ruled in favor of parents and school staff who sought a temporary restraining order against emergency rules adopted by the Illinois Department of Public Health (IDPH) and the Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE). The emergency rules included masking, testing, and quarantine requirements.
This court, like the court in Demetriou v. New York State Dept. of Health, is following a number of decisions around the country asserting that public health authorities need to be explicitly granted by the legislature. This echoes what federal courts refer to as the major questions doctrine. As the Supreme Court said in its recent case invalidating the OSHA vaccination mandate, “‘We expect Congress to speak clearly’ if it wishes to assign to an executive agency decisions ‘of vast economic and political significance.’”
The judge here determined that authority to implement such rules was improperly delegated to ISBE, despite an Executive Order allowing ISBE to promulgate emergency rules as necessary to effectuate the order. “The Court cannot find (nor did any party provide) any law enacted by the State Legislature that grants the IDPH the authority to delegate or transfer its duties and responsibilities to ISBE and local school districts.”
The Illinois judge also indicated skepticism that the emergency rules were implemented in good faith, writing the rules were modified “under the guise of an emergency.” The judge added that COVID-19 has been in existence over one and a half years, making the need to adopt such emergency rules “suspect at best and not in compliance with the law.” Due process and separation of powers were also implicated in the decision.
As of Monday, many of the districts named in the case have adopted new "mask-optional" policies. Some canceled classes due to a lack of clarity regarding the ruling, and others moved to remote learning.
