Supreme Court Rules To Trash Lawsuits Against Biden For Vaccine Mandates, Thereby Stripping Away Precedent To Dissent Against Mandates

To close out 2023, The United States Supreme Court quietly ruled earlier this month to throw out lower appellate district court rulings that challenged President Biden’s Covid-19 vaccine mandates for public employees and the Armed Forces, which effectively strips away any future precedent to challenge any future vaccine mandates or of the suchlike.

In other words, if the federal government wants to mandate any future vaccines, for example, chances of getting it repealed in court are probably moot and dead-on-arrival.

On December 11th, the three lower court rulings in question – Payne v. Biden, U.S., No. 22-1225, Biden v. Feds for Medical Freedom, U.S., No. 23-60, and Kendall v. Doster, U.S., No. 23-154. – were rendered “moot.” All three cases were filed before Biden’s federal mandate was rescinded in May.

As explained by Bloomberg Law of the day of the rulings: ‘the justices vacated decisions from the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth, Sixth and DC Circuits on whether federal employees can challenge the vaccine requirement in district court under the Civil Service Reform Act.’

‘The law set administrative procedures that employees must follow when challenging an adverse employment action, like a firing or suspension, and gave the Federal Circuit exclusive authority to hear appeals,’ Bloomberg added.

The Biden administration, including a lone federal employee plaintiff who lost at the Appellate level, requested the Supreme Court to issue a “Munsingwear vacatur,” which would sponge the lower court rulings due to the cases being moot. “Vacatur” is a Latin phrase which means “to set aside a judgment,” according to US Legal.

Instead, Bloomberg said, ‘The justices undid the rulings under the so-called Munsingwear doctrine, in which the court vacates adverse rulings that the losing party no longer has the ability to challenge.’

In other words, ‘By wiping out the historical record, the Supreme Court has ensured that any legal challenges to future vaccine mandates will be cases of first impression without precedent,’ The Vaccine Reaction explained.

All Supreme Court Justices ruled to throw out the cases – John G. Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan; including all three of Donald Trump’s appointees, Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett – however, save only for one, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who dissented in two of the cases.

Jackson was appointed to the Supreme Court by President Joe Biden in 2022, and garnered controversy when she was pointblank asked to provide a legal definition for what a ‘woman’ is, when being questioned by the Senate before being sworn in. At the time she said “I can’t” provide a definition […], Not in this context. I am not a biologist.”

And yet, ironically, it was the Biden-appointed Judge who couldn’t define a woman, who dissented against her fellow Justices.

In the first case, Payne V. Biden, the lady Justice wrote in the proceedings: “Justice Jackson, concurring: Although I would require that the party seeking vacatur establish equitable entitlement to that remedy, I accede to vacatur here based on the Court’s established practice when the mootness occurs through the unilateral action of the party that prevailed in the lower court.”

In the second case, Biden v. Feds for Medical Freedom, Jackson noted: “Justice Jackson, dissenting: In my view, the party seeking vacatur has not established equitable entitlement to that remedy.”

And in the third instance, Kendall, Secretary of the Air Force V. Doster, the Justice wrote: “Justice Jackson, dissenting: In my view, the party seeking vacatur has not established equitable entitlement to that remedy.”

As a general matter, I believe that a party who claims equitable entitlement to vacatur must explain what harm—other than having to accept the law as the lower court stated it—flows from the inability to appeal the lower court decision.

Justice Brown wrote

This ruling by the Supreme Court, which has gone away silently in the night, will indeed have great ramifications later on…