However, the Fifth Circuit was unconvinced that the virus, causing a nearly two-year-long global pandemic, has reached the emergency authority threshold for “grave danger” despite having caused more than 750,000 deaths in the US. OSHA is able to overlook administrative requirements to enforce workplace safety and health standards in situations that reach a “grave danger” standard. The three-judge court has described the mandate as a “one-size-fits-all sledgehammer” blanket enforcement on different kinds of workplaces. The court also noted that the mandate as a whole raises constitutional concerns, as it is likely that OSHA has exceeded its statutory authority. The court noted that a permanent injunction for the vaccine mandate is likely because the law’s applicability is simultaneously overinclusive and underinclusive, as it only applied to workplaces with 99 or more employees. The ETS challenge was filed by the Attorneys General for Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas and Utah. The mandate, known as the Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) on Vaccination and Testing was published last Saturday by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). The US Supreme Court denied the administration’s request stay of the district court’s order in August, finding it likely that the MPP cancellation was arbitrary and capricious.The US Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Friday upheld its November 6 decision to temporarily stop the Biden administration’s vaccine mandate for private businesses. It is unclear if the Biden administration will pursue further litigation to end MPP. Under this ruling, the federal government must resume MPP proceedings in Mexico. The court found that mootness only occurs once a controversy between parties is dead and gone, and that “the controversy between these parties is very much not dead and gone.” Furthermore, the court was unsatisfied with the government’s claim that issuing a new memo cured problems with the old memo, stating that it risked “supplant the rule of law with the rule of say-so.” § 1225, an immigration statute that governs the removal of noncitizens filing claims for asylum and permits the return of asylum-seekers to contiguous nations pending proceedings.įurthermore, the court disagreed with the administration’s claim that the dispute had been rendered moot through the Department of Homeland Security’s issuance of additional memoranda on October 29 that clarified the decision to terminate MPP. The appeals court agreed with the plaintiffs’ assertion, as well as the district court’s finding, that the Biden administration’s cancellation of MPP violated the Administrative Procedure Act as well as 8 U.S.C. Following a district court order requiring MPP to be reinstated, the Biden administration appealed. They argued that an abrupt cancellation of MPP was arbitrary and capricious and that border states would be burdened by asylum seekers. However, Trump-era supporters advocated for the policy as being necessary to address large numbers of migrants arriving from Mexico.įollowing the Biden administration’s decision to end MPP in early 2021, Texas and Missouri filed suit in federal court. The policy has received criticism for violating international law that forbids states from turning away legitimate asylum seekers. The MPP, also known as the “Remain in Mexico” policy, requires asylum-seekers on the southern border to wait in Mexico, sometimes for years, while their asylum claims are processed in the US immigration system. The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Monday denied the Biden administration’s appeal to terminate the Trump-era Migration Protection Protocols (MPP), affirming a Texas district court’s decision that would require the administration to leave the MPP intact.