CHEYENNE, Wyo. (Feb. 17, 2022) – A bill filed in the Wyoming Senate would ban state and local enforcement of any federal COVID-19 vaccine mandate, an important first step to nullify it in practice and effect.
A coalition of four Republicans introduced Senate Bill 94 (SF94) on Feb. 15. The proposed law would prohibit any state or local official from enforcing or attempting to enforce “any act, order, law, statute, rule or regulation of the United States government regarding mandating COVID-19 vaccinations or mandating the use or prohibition of any other form of COVID-19 preventative treatment that includes but is not limited to a nasal spray, pill or tablet.”
Any state or local official found in violation of the law would face misdemeanor criminal penalties and would be terminated from their position.
SF94 would also create a cause of action in state court for any person “aggrieved” by state or local enforcement of a federal vaccine mandate.
The legislation also includes criminal penalties for federal agents who enforce or attempt to enforce a federal vaccine mandate.
VACCINE MANDATE ENFORCEMENT IN PRACTICE
Although the Supreme Court struck down the OSHA-enforced vaccine mandate on businesses with over 100 employees, it left the door open for such a mandate in the future. The Court didn’t say the federal government couldn’t impose a vaccine mandate. In fact, it let stand a federal mandate for healthcare workers. SCOTUS merely held that Congres did not give OSHA enforcement authority. That means Congress could make a statutory change to empower OSHA to enforce a vaccine mandate. Or, the president could find another way to impose one.
Even though the Court struck it down, the Biden mandate reveals the difficulty the feds face enforcing any vaccine mandate.
The 490-page federal vaccine regulation required every person employed by businesses with 100 or more workers to be vaccinated or undergo weekly COVID-19 testing. According to CBS News, that includes 84 million employees. The mandate also covered all federal workers and contractors. Companies that failed to comply could have faced fines of nearly $14,000 per “serious” violation. OSHA would serve as the primary federal enforcement agency for the mandate.
But OSHA has an Achilles heel, a serious lack of enforcement capability.
OSHA only employs 774 inspectors for the entire country. Approximately 1,200 more work for the states but enforce OSHA rules. That small force of inspectors must cover more than 7 million businesses. Currently, it would take them 160 years to inspect every business under its jurisdiction just one time. That’s why the feds will have to rely on snitches to have any hope of enforcing the vaccine mandate.
“There is no army of OSHA inspectors that is going to be knocking on employers’ doors or even calling them,” a former OSHA chief of staff told CBS News “They’re going to rely on workers and their union representatives to file complaints where the company is totally flouting the law.”
OSHA would also rely heavily on state cooperation to enforce the mandate. Stating that it’s a “team effort.”
Implementation and enforcement of OSHA regulations can be done on either a state or a federal level. Wyoming is one of 22 states that enforce OSHA regulations through a federally approved state plan. This is similar to the state-run exchanges for Obamacare. There are no federal OSHA inspectors in Wyoming. With the state serving as the OSHA enforcement arm in Wyoming, withdrawal of state enforcement would put the feds in a tight spot.
The state plan stipulates that OSHA will step in and enforce federal rules if the state can’t (or won’t) enforce them. Even if the feds did step in, they would still need state cooperation and assistance to effectively enforce a vaccine mandate.
Here’s the dirty little secret they don’t want you to know — partnerships and “team efforts” don’t work when half the team quits.
If employees refuse to tell on their coworkers and employers, and if states refuse to help enforce the vaccine mandates, the vaccine mandates won’t be enforced.
End of story.
State action can set the stage to nullify the vaccine mandate in practice and effect.
Based on James Madison’s advice for states and individuals in Federalist #46, a “refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union” is an extremely effective method to hinder the enforcement of any federal action because most enforcement relies on help, support and leadership from the states. This is true of virtually every federal law, and it will clearly be the case with the vaccine mandates.
Human action is also key. States can ban enforcement help all they want, but if everyone still complies, there’s nothing to enforce. In order to nullify the mandate, people must reject and resist it first and foremost.
ARRESTING FEDERAL AGENTS
The provision imposing criminal penalties on federal agents is problematic and should be amended out in committee.
Under federal statutes, any case involving a federal agent acting within the scope of his or her official duties gets removed to federal court. In other words, the current structure of the legal system makes it virtually impossible to prosecute a federal agent in state court. Lawyers for the charged federal agent would immediately make a motion to remove the case to a federal district court under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1). Unless the state judge refused to comply, the case would then be out of state hands.
Nevertheless, the threat of arrest would create problems for federal agents trying to enforce vaccine mandate in Kansas and would certainly gum up the works even if they were never prosecuted. The question is whether or not local law enforcement will be willing to enforce the law on federal officials. This seems unlikely.
The state of Wyoming can refuse to use state personnel or resources for the enforcement of any federal act whether constitutional or not.
Refusal to cooperate with federal enforcement rests on a well-established legal principle known as the anti-commandeering doctrine. Simply put, the federal government cannot force states to help implement or enforce any federal act or program. The anti-commandeering doctrine is based primarily on five Supreme Court cases dating back to 1842. Printz v. U.S. serves as the cornerstone.
“We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the States’ officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policy making is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty”
No determination of constitutionality is necessary to invoke the anti-commandeering doctrine. State and local governments can refuse to enforce federal laws or implement federal programs whether they are constitutional or not.
If Wyoming doesn’t want to enforce vaccine mandates, it doesn’t have to — no matter what a federal court says about the constitutionality of such mandates.
At the time of this report, SF94 had not been referred to a committee. Once it receives a committee assignment, it must get a hearing and pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.
- Arizona Senate Passes Bill to Establish Bullion Depository and Transactional Gold-Backed Currency - February 29, 2024
- Missouri Bill Would Ban Warrantless Reverse Location Tracking - February 29, 2024
- Kentucky House Passes Bill to Limit ALPR Data Retention, Help Block National License Plate Tracking Program - February 29, 2024