Changes

1 byte removed ,  22:12, January 16, 2022
m
no edit summary
Line 5: Line 5:     
In the vaccine mandate cases in January 2022, a 5-4 Court majority upheld a vaccine mandate against health workers by ruling that:<ref>https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21a240_d18e.pdf</ref>
 
In the vaccine mandate cases in January 2022, a 5-4 Court majority upheld a vaccine mandate against health workers by ruling that:<ref>https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21a240_d18e.pdf</ref>
−
{{cquote|Lastly, the rule does not run afoul of the directive in §1395 that federal officials may not “exercise any supervision or control over the ... manner in which medical services are provided, or over the selection [or] tenure ... of any officer or employee of ” any facility. That reading of section 1395 would mean that nearly every condition of participation the Secretary has long insisted upon is unlawful.}}
+
{{cquote|Lastly, the rule does not run afoul of the directive in §1395 that federal officials may not “exercise any supervision or control over the ... manner in which medical services are provided, or over the selection [or] tenure ... of any officer or employee of” any facility. That reading of section 1395 would mean that nearly every condition of participation the Secretary has long insisted upon is unlawful.}}
 
==References==
 
==References==
 
{{reflist}}
 
{{reflist}}
Anthony, Irenaeus, Siteadmin, apieditor, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
126,644

edits