Biden v. Missouri
142 S. Ct. 647
SCOTUS2022Background
- On Nov. 5, 2021, HHS (CMS) issued an interim final rule conditioning Medicare/Medicaid participation on covered facility staff being vaccinated against COVID‑19, allowing medical and religious exemptions and excluding full‑time teleworkers.
- The rule exposed noncompliant facilities to penalties, payment denials for new admissions, and termination from programs.
- The Secretary found vaccination necessary for patient health and safety, relied on data about transmission and vulnerable patient populations, and invoked "good cause" to forgo prior notice-and-comment because of imminent public‑health risks.
- Louisiana and Missouri sued; two federal district courts preliminarily enjoined enforcement.
- The Government sought stays from the Supreme Court; the Court granted stays of both preliminary injunctions pending appeal and potential certiorari.
- The Court’s majority held the rule within the Secretary’s statutory authority, not arbitrary and capricious, and properly issued as an interim final rule; Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Barrett dissented.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Statutory authority to impose vaccine mandate via conditions of participation | States: CMS lacks clear statutory power; definitional/ancillary provisions don’t authorize a nationwide vaccine mandate | Government: Statutes authorizing conditions of participation and longstanding infection‑control regulations empower the Secretary to impose requirements necessary for patient health and safety | Majority: Rule falls within the Secretary’s longstanding statutory authority to impose health‑and‑safety conditions on participation; stay granted |
| APA challenge — arbitrary & capricious | States: Rule departs from prior agency practice without adequate reason; insufficient data/justification for mandating vaccines (vs testing) and for covering naturally immune staff | Government: Administrative record supports decisions; Secretary examined relevant data and acted within a zone of reasonableness | Majority: Not arbitrary and capricious given the record; agency acted within reasonableness standard |
| Good‑cause bypass of notice‑and‑comment (5 U.S.C. §553) | States: CMS delayed while vaccines were available; generalized emergency rationale insufficient; agency must show particularized, imminent harm | Government: Delta surge and winter risks gave specific, time‑sensitive reasons; expedited implementation was justified | Majority: Good cause adequately shown here; interim rule procedural shortcut permitted; dissent criticized weakness of the justification and agency delay |
| Scope of judicial relief (stay of district courts’ preliminary injunctions) | States: Injunctions protect state sovereignty, workers, and procedural rights | Government: Irreparable harm to patient health and safety if injunctions stand; likelihood of success on merits | Supreme Court: Stayed both district court preliminary injunctions pending appeals/possible certiorari |
Key Cases Cited
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Assn. of United States, Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (1983) (standard for arbitrary and capricious review)
- Whitman v. American Trucking Assns., Inc., 531 U.S. 457 (2001) (agency authority cannot hide fundamental policy choices in vague provisions)
- Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009) (stay factors and standards)
- Hollingsworth v. Perry, 558 U.S. 183 (2010) (standards for stay applications)
- Russello v. United States, 464 U.S. 16 (1983) (textual/contextual limits on extending statutory provisions)
- Zucht v. King, 260 U.S. 174 (1922) (public‑health vaccination authority and state police power)
- Merck & Co. v. United States Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 962 F.3d 531 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (discussion of nexus between agency rules and program administration)
- Sugar Cane Growers Cooperative of Florida v. Veneman, 289 F.3d 89 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (notice‑and‑comment failures are not harmless when uncertainty exists)