Thread by @therealarod1984

The 1) lawsuit and 2) preliminary injunction filed by 12 states in W. Louisiana yesterday against CMS - the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

RE: Biden administration’s overreaching COVID-19 vaccine mandate for healthcare workers

THREAD 1/n

dojmt.gov/attorney-gener…

What is striking about this motion for preliminary injunction (basically a Stay), is how much of the language of the 5th Circuit's Stay vs OSHA is quoted.

Also I didn't realize CMS was attempting to use the Social Security Act as the legal justification for this Mandate.

2/n
.

Overview of reasons why a STAY must be granted:

* At odds with the SSA
* Exceeds CMS's statutory authority
* Violates the SSA's prohibition on control of healthcare workers
* Violates the
** Spending Clause
** Anti-Commandeering Doctrine
** 10th Amendment

3/n

Healthcare will be affected in 3 ways:

* Healthcare companies will lose federal funding and be subject to fines
* As many as 2.4 million Healthcare workers may lose their livelihoods
* Worker shortages will cause many of the most vulnerable to lose access to Healthcare

4/n

Remember, this is the Plantiff's request for a "Stay" filed yesterday. This is not the ruling on that request.

Next the Plantiffs go through the 4 traditional criteria for a Stay and how this case merits one

5/n

Plantiff's argument that CMS issued the Mandate without following the required processes.

Also commentary on CMS' claim that this is an emergency declaration, using the same language from the 5th circuit OSHA - "it waited almost 2 months" after Biden's directive

6/n
.

Plantiff's argument that

* The CMS Mandate is beyond the Executive's authority, the authority lies with Congress
* Never has the CMS relied upon its Social Security Act authority to mandate healthcare worker vaccination

7/n

Plantiff's argument that the Social Security Act grants no such authority to CMS

* SSA only authorizes "such regulations as many necessary to carry out administration"
* Other statutes cited by CMS only grant authority to govern standards & day-to-day aspects of facilities

8/n

Plantiff's argument regarding the constitutional issues the CMS Mandate raises:

* Reference to the 5th Circuit OSHA Stay - that power to mandate vaccination falls to the states
* The SSA used in this way would confer limitless, unfettered power to the Executive Branch

9/n

Plantiff's argument regarding the Mandate violating sections of the Social Security Act:

* Requires consultation with the States before a rule is issued which CMS concedes it did not do
* Violates Title 18 which prohibits control over the selection/tenure of health workers

10/n

Plaintiff's argument that the Mandate is Arbitrary & Capricious:

* it ignores the SSA's focus on patient wellbeing rather than the health of providers.
* the a list of multiple real examples from health care providers, of possible impacts if the mandate goes through

11/n

Plaintiff's additional arguments that the Mandate is Arbitrary:

* Arbitrarily rejected alternatives such as periodic C19 testing
* Goes against previous opposition to mandates by both CMS & Biden
* Its blatant goal is simply to increase Vaccine uptake

12/n

Plaintiff's final arguments that the Mandate is Arbitrary:

* it ignores the State's reliance on Medicare and Medicaid and the potential harm to citizens and workers
* Its scope is too broad, affecting facilities not related to CMS's goal of protecting elderly & infirm

13/n

Plaintiff's arguments that the Mandate violates the Spending Clause

* Congress must give clear notice that mandates are a condition to accept federal funds
* Noncompliance with the Mandate threatens a large portion of the States budgets, and leaves States with no choice

14/n

Plaintiff's argument that the Mandate violates the 10th Amendment and he Anti-Commandeering Doctrine

Interesting. Basically saying that the Feds will be forcing the states to enforce the Mandate for them. Dragooning/commandeering them in acting as Mandate enforcement.

15/n

Plaintiff argument that States and Citizens will suffer irreparable harm without a Stay

* Irreparable economic injuries
* Loss of State sovereignty under the Commerce Clause
* Injuries to citizens either losing livelihoods or their medical freedom

16/n
.

Finally the argument from the Plantiffs that the Injunction would not harm the Defendents or Disserve the Public Interest.

Request for the court to grant the motion for a Preliminary Injunction (Stay)

17/n
.

If anything the CMS Mandate is a bigger stretch and less flexible than the OHSA mandate. Huge stretch trying to fit this into the Social Security Act & no out in regards to choosing a testing/masking option.

Unless Upside Down world appears, a Stay will be granted IMHO.

18/end