Supreme Court Delivers Blow to Vaccine Skeptics

[spanone]

The U.S. Supreme Court rejected to hear an appeal relating to COVID-19 vaccine requirements in the workplace, dealing a blow to vaccine skeptics across the nation.

On Tuesday morning, the Supreme Court orders list showed that it was denying to hear any further arguments in the case Katie Sczesny, et al. v. Murphy, Gov. of New Jersey, et al. The case focused on four New Jersey nurses who filed a lawsuit against New Jersey's COVID-19 vaccine requirements in the workplace, citing religious freedom and health concerns.

The Supreme Court did not provide any further explanation for its refusal to hear the case, but the decision allows a ruling in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit to stand. The lower court ruled that the vaccine mandate challenged by the nurses did not violate their Constitutional freedoms and allowed an executive order from New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy to stay in place.

Newsweek reached out to lawyers for the state of New Jersey and Murphy via email for comment.

https://www.newsweek.com/supreme-court-covid-vaccine-case-new-jersey-nurses-1843530?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1699971939

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. Well, how about that?

The Supreme Court can make intelligent rulings!

[maxrandb]

7. Only if you put the spotlight on them

and the American voters begin letting them know that they are sick of their fucking, bullshit, Ayn Rand dystopian wingnut rulings.

Now is the time to keep putting the pressure on the illegitimate Reich-wing majority appointed by a fucking treasonous criminal.

Biff, Conservabot Go-suck, and the Hand Maiden will go down in history as the judges appointed to their jobs by America's own version of Adolf Hitler.

That should be chiseled on their tombstones; "Here lies Judge ( ), appointed to the court by America's Hitler"

[Martin68]

14. Agreed, but it is good to see they respond to public pressure.

[mountain grammy]

21. and as usual

you are 100% correct. The blatant corruption must remain in the spotlight as they continue to behave like rulers of the land, the people be damned.

[jaxexpat]

22. "if you put the spotlight on them", they do what roaches do. Run away and hide, it's every insect for itself!

We are at the dawn of an age where here-to-fore deaf and mute people are daily screaming evermore unbelievable denials and creating impossible scenarios to support their purely self-serving roles of support for the up and coming hanged man, Benito Trump.

We must not see this as "normal news of the day" ever. There are for-profit prison cells begging for these guys. Perhaps we should return to, less lethal, stocks and pillory at every crossroads. Terrifyingly entertaining, no?

[Moostache]

8. $50 says that the dissenters includes Thomas...

If not, you could knock me over with a feather!

[JoseBalow]

20. I'd rather have the $50

But I wouldn't bet against you on this one

[redqueen]

11. Yes, a refreshing change from the usual

Broken clocks and all that

[Hermit-The-Prog]

34. I'm cynical...

My guess is that they didn't want to interfere with mega-donor corporations who want employees vaccinated. If they deny NJ, they would then be denying Koch industries the same power. The Roberts court loves rule by corporations. (Decisions run over 90% in favor of corporations vs individuals).

[ShazzieB]

35. Good point.

I have a feeling the billionaire benefactors of certain justices would support this decision as well.

At least we can be happy that they mode the right decision, whatever their reasons may have been.

[RKP5637]

2. Excellent! n/t

[appleannie1]

3. Being nurses, they ought to know better.

One of the hardest things my daughter had to deal with was watching so many people die and not being able to help them get better and having to hold her cell phone to their ear so their loved ones could say goodbye. She is still taking care of COVID patients to this day but since so many of them have been vaccinated, they usually are not nearly as sick as they were before vaccines.

[Liberty Belle]

17. My daughter, an ICU physician assistant, says the same thing.

Most who went on ventilators in the early months of the pandemic died-- like 97% of them. Now with vaccines, and Paxlovid treatments, far fewer wind up in the ICU and those who do have a far better chance of survival.

If there is any workplace that should be able to mandate vaccines, it's hospitals, which treat the sickest of patients.

If the justices had allowed COVID vaccines to become non-mandatory, you would have next seen healthcare workers challenging vaccine mandates hospitals have for many other diseases such as hepatitis, tuberculosis, etc. Unless we want hospitals to become breeding grounds for dangerous diseases,as they were before vaccines, these mandates must stand.

Glad to see the justices do something decent, for once.

[lastlib]

25. I would argue that individuals have no more religious freedom to refuse vaccines....

than to practice headhunting. Both are injurious to society.

[Wounded Bear]

4. Kind of surprising with this court, but good news...nt

[Grins]

5. "... citing religious freedom"?

Oh, ffs!! Shut up!

[Moostache]

10. Agreed...

Religious freedom applies ONLY to the practice of your religion in private and free from state sanctioned efforts to outlaw it. It does NOT (and NEVER has) grant one free reign to do anything they want and later claim protections. Its like morons who squeal about 'free speech' without realizing that CONSEQUNECES from speech are NOT protected...you are ALWAYS free to say stupid shit, but you are also liable for the reactions and consequences of said stupid shit!

Religion in general still receives far too much deference in the public square. I begrudge no one their right to rub bat guano on themselves and call it spiritual or to ritualistically celebrate cannibalism with crackers and wine in their private, voluntary assemblies...but the second they try to haul it out of the churches and into politics or the public domain, then its lights out and a very hard "no".

[50 Shades Of Blue]

6. I'm stunned!

[BlueIdaho]

9. Hey Robert Kennedy Jr...

Time to shut your pie hole.

[bucolic_frolic]

12. So you have religious freedom to not bake a cake or pay for birth control, but they can inject you at will

Puzzling. SCOTUS Schizo, demented, or just plain looney?

[Liberty Belle]

19. You can choose not to patronize a bigoted bakery, but you have no choice on hospitals usually.

For accidents you're taken to the closest hospital or the one with a trauma center. For illnesses, most people have insurance that dictates which hospitals are covered.

While I'm against allowing any business to discriminate, I can see the logic justices might have followed in viewing hospitals different than shops where purchases are discretionary.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

30. The opinion as dictated by the Pope may have some influence, ...

... or Opus Dei. If they are not anti-vax, then neither is the Extreme Court.

If other religions have a differing opinion, the right-wing of the Extreme Court won't care.

[malaise]

13. Good

Rec.

[appleannie1]

15. Love how the anti vaxxers seem to think that only their rights should count.

It doesn't bother them in the least that they are making other people sick or killing them. Not to long ago, I had a really bad cold so I wore a mask to the drug store at Wally World to pick up the prescription my doctor had called in. A lady behind me told me I no longer had to wear a stupid mask. So I turned to her and said "I just tested positive for COVID and decided to wear a mask in an attempt not to give it to anyone else." She decided she needed something in a different aisle and disappeared in a hurry.

[Skittles]

37. they are such hypocrites

they're always going on about freedom but then feel like they can accost strangers trying to protect themselves......crazy people, and hypocrites too

[LiberalArkie]

16. There was a time when the supremes would not allow 50 cal weapons to be sold to the public,

this was the time when armored limos could not withstand a 50 cal projectile. Now that the armored limos (like they ride in) can take the shot, 50 cal weapons can be sold. Always thought that was interesting.

Probably not related at all.

[SYFROYH]

26. That's an interesting statement. When did SCOTUS not allow .50 calibre rifles and/or ammo?

[struggle4progress]

18. Next you could lose your right to beat heretics with clubs studded with rusty nails!

And then what? What other rights will you lose?

[SunSeeker]

23. Even the Trump Justices don't want crazy unvaxxed nurses treating them. nt

[Heftylefty]

24. Jacobson v Massachusetts

SCOTUS didn't hear the case because they decided this issue in the case above in 1905, by a vote of 7-2, at the height of the smallpox epidemic. A state may enact a compulsory vaccination law, since the legislature has the discretion to decide whether vaccination is the best way to prevent disease and protect public health. It was ruled NOT to violate the 14th Amendment, because the Court held that the law was a legitimate exercise of the state's police power to protect the public health and safety of its citizens.

[keopeli]

29. Thanks, and welcome to DU! Informative post!

[LetMyPeopleVote]

38. Welcome to DU

[lapfog_1]

27. No one mandated that they HAD to be nurses.

and given their understanding of actual science... who would want someone like that as a nurse?

It is sort of like hiring a flat earth society person to design rockets for a trip to the moon.

[drmeow]

32. Same with pharmacists

who don't want to dispense BC or abortion drugs - unfortunately they let that one get by (lying hypocrites)

[patphil]

28. Nurses who refuse to be vaccinated are a threat to both themselves and their patients.

Imagine you're a patient who is at risk for covid, and you got one of these 4 nurses assisting you. Now imagine if they weren't vaccinated, and you got covid.
That's lawsuit territory.
They need to seriously reconsider their career choice.

[Martin68]

33. Couldn't seem to delete this post.

[sl8]

36. Third Circuit had dismissed the appeal as moot:

ORDER, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
(JUNE 14, 2023)
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
________________________
KATIE SCZESNY; JAIME RUMFIELD;
DEBRA HAGEN; MARIETTE VITTI,
Appellants,
v.
PHILIP MURPHY, in His Official and
Personal Capacity; STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
________________________

No. 22-2230

On Appeal from a Decision of the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey
(D.C. Civil No. 3-22-cv-02314)

District Judge: The Honorable Georgette Castner
Before: Kent A. JORDAN, Circuit Judge.

On June 12, 2023, counsel for the Appellees filed a
letter informing the Court that the Executive Orders
at issue in this appeal had been rescinded, effective
immediately, and suggesting that the appeal is moot.
The next day, counsel for the Appellants responded
with a letter arguing that the appeal is not moot
because effective relief was still possible, and further
arguing that exceptions to the mootness doctrine apply,
specifically the doctrines that voluntary cessation of
unlawful activity does not moot a case and that
activity capable of repetition yet evading review will
not be considered moot. Having considered the parties’
arguments, we conclude that the appeal is indeed moot
and must therefore be dismissed. We express no opinion on whether the case itself is moot. That question is for the District Court to consider on remand. Our
decision is solely that this appeal, which is limited to
review of the denial of a petition for preliminary
injunctive relief, no longer presents a live issue for
review, given the rescission of the Executive Orders
in question. It is accordingly hereby ORDERED that
the appeal is dismissed and the matter remanded to
the District Court for further proceedings.

By the Court
/s/ Kent A. Jordan
Circuit Judge

[bluestarone]

39. Great news, BUT

Why do i feel this can be revisited? This probably is NOT the end of this.