lobo411

Ya she proved that she earned her rating as well. Her legal rationale, according to those who have read the ruling (I haven't), is that under the CDC rule, anyone who tries to ride public transportation in violation of the rule risks arrest by the local authorities. Therefore, the rule is unconstitutional because it's the CDC arresting and detaining people, which is outside of their authority.

Uh....huh? It's like saying that FDA food inspection regulations are unconstitutional because some mildly tainted food might not make it to market, and some starving person might not get to eat it, and that's the same as a government execution!

I'm very much looking forward to ending the face mask rule, but for me the big one that needs to end is the neg covid test before travel. Still, a bad ruling is a bad ruling, and lawless judges hurt everyone.

From CNN:
In her 59-page ruling, Mizelle suggested that the government's implementation of the mandate -- in which non-complying travelers are "forcibly removed from their airplane seats, denied board at the bus steps, and turned away at the train station doors" -- was akin to "detention and quarantine," which are not contemplated in the section of the law in question, she said.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/18/polit...ing/index.html

ellinj

Citation??

Beltway2A

https://www.americanbar.org/content/...ll-mizelle.pdf

TravelForum

I think (and hope) you are right regarding things start crumbling like a house of cards in the near future.

ual744777sta

On a UA flight right now. News of the mandate came out during boarding. No announcement about it. Status quo inflight.

LuckyStrike

Finally, a judge is "following the science" . Mask theater needs to end. If you want to wear a mask.... wear one. Leave the rest of us alone.

michael1023

One down, one to go ..

Visconti

A month or two again, I noticed this in Vegas. Not that I'm Nostradamus here, but it was obvious to anyone, who wasn't a complete zealot, that most--irrespective of politics or their positions on these mandates--were tired of it and agreed these draconian measures have all outlived their usefulness; to me, it was a leading indicator of things to come.

pfreet

The US Supreme Court has already struck down the prior CDC over-reach on evictions. This seems to be a similar issue where the same argument that an agency without authority is making law.

BillBurn

You should really read the ruling. It was vacated primarily because it did not follow the Administrative Procedures Act, especially the requirement for a public comment period. The judge also ruled that the mandate exceeded the statutory authority of the CDC. The ruling should not be a surprise given that the CDC has lost two other mandate cases for similar reasons. The ruling is the opposite of "lawless". Lawless is when an administrative agency, such as the CDC, knowingly does not follow the law, such as the APA, as written and creates powers for itself that are not authorized by law.

lobo411

The ruling had nothing to do with science, and if you read it, it even says that masking is a proven and effective means of preventing transmission.

Carolina2Cali

I have one flight today and one tomorrow. Do I have to wear a mask? I don't need opinions, just current law and company policy. I've got my shots and had Covid twice, I am flying mask free IF ALLOWED.

on-a-stick

The FDA's authority is well-tested and understood. The FDA can forcibly recall food and take it off shelves in very limited circumstances - adulteration/mislabeling, risk of serious health issues or death. The proportionality here is clear: it's basically a clear-and-present-danger requirement.

The Judge's ruling here, which I agree with, is that the mask mandate is proportionally not the same. There is no clear-and-present-danger aspect to the wearing of masks on planes or in airports (or anywhere else, if we're being honest.) The penalties for non-compliance are onerous for the people affected. And, above all else, the judge is correct that the legal backing for the mandate is in clear contravention of the PHSA's precedent in particular and the ADA in general.

lobo411

I just finished reading it, and it's utterly preposterous. The APA allows agencies such as the CDC to issue orders without following the normal procedures as long as one of the following applies:

1. The order is not a rule. IE, it's a temporary measure, not a permanent change. Obviously, the mask mandate fits this--no agency, court, or individual has even suggested that the mask mandate is anything but a temporary measure

2. There is "good cause" not to wait for the normal process to play out (the 30 days normally allowed for public comment). Obviously, the mask mandate fits this as well. During the month of January 2021, 80,000 Americans died of covid-19. If masks are 10% effective at preventing transmission, and 10% of cases lead to death, then waiting 30 days for public comment means 800 people would have died. Saving 800 lives is absolutely "good cause" to waive the 30 day comment rule.

Seph87

While I agree that the mask mandate should be dropped, a legally dubious ruling from an unqualified judge is not the way to go about doing this.