This newsletter is distributed by Public Health Law Watch as part of Act for Public Health, a working group of the Public Health Law Partnership that is convening to provide law and policy research, analysis, and expertise in support of public health authority.
This week's case updates:
Thursday, 8/11: A federal court in New York dismissed a suit against the Mayor of New York city and the Commissioner of the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene over proof of vaccination requirements.
Thursday, 8/11: The Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a lawsuit challenging COVID-19 requirements for agricultural employers.
Monday, 8/15: A California appeals court ruled that a church that violated COVID-19 regulations will not have to pay fines.
Thursday, 8/18: A federal court in Maine dismissed a lawsuit by healthcare workers challenging a vaccination mandate for certain healthcare employees.
Spotlight: More amicus briefs filed in the CDC transportation mask mandate case
Private individuals and organizations are making their voices heard in the CDC transportation mask mandate litigation. Following Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle's April 2022 decision striking down the mandate, Public Health Law Watch submitted an amicus brief with public health and public health law experts and organizations in support of the CDC. This month, eight groups have submitted amicus briefs in support of plaintiffs, the Health Freedom Defense Fund.
Briefs on behalf of plaintiffs have been submitted by a group of disabled passengers, the Washington Legal Foundation, a group of airline workers, Liberty, Life, and Law Foundation, Children’s Health Defense, Florida and 22 other states, Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, and a group of industrial hygiene experts.
Several of the briefs claimed that wearing masks leads to health issues. For example, the brief submitted by a group of airline workers argued that “[p]ilots must wear a mask before and after flight, causing us numerous medical deficiencies,” and “[w]earing a mask before we work a flight causes us to feel we are unable to operate the aircraft in a safe manner.”
Other briefs argued that the masks are not effective public health measures. A brief by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, a conservative nonprofit described by the New York Times as “ultra-right-wing” and “a political-economic rather than a medical group” dismissed several studies illustrating the effectiveness of masks, deciding instead to cite to a study that looked only at school mask mandates.
A few briefs brought in legal arguments. For example, the brief submitted by a group of disabled passengers argued that the mandate exceeded the CDC’s statutory authority and asked the court to “affirm the district court’s reliance on the Major Questions Doctrine.” Similarly, Florida’s brief argued that the mandate exceeded statutory authority because it is not a “sanitation” measure.
In contrast, Public Health Law Watch’s brief with public health and public health law experts in support of the CDC asserted that the mask mandate is a proper exercise of the CDC’s core regulatory powers to combat infectious disease spread and transmission. Congress wrote the Public Health Service Act to be broad enough to allow authorized agencies the power to take actions that in its “judgment[,] may be necessary” to respond to various diseases.
The American Medical Association also filed a brief in support of the CDC, arguing that masks are an effective public health intervention and that public health authorities like the CDC are well-positioned to implement such measures in an emergency situation like the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Eleventh Circuit has not yet set a schedule for arguments in the case.
