In addition to the procedural issues for an OSHA ETS, this case involves more fundamental matters. For instance, how can the federal government bind an Alabama company that does not have branches across state lines? Since this appears to be a matter of intrastate commerce instead of interstate commerce, vaccine mandates like this should be reserved to the states and the people under the 10th Amendment. Thus, this case gives us a chance to stand for federalism.

It also gives us a chance to stand for separation of powers. Even if the federal government could somehow legitimately issue this mandate, how could the President do this without congressional approval? Legislative power is the power to make law, and it belongs to Congress alone. The President and the agencies under him have executive power, which is the power to execute the law. This looks more like legislative power than executive power. And since we have the most conservative Supreme Court since before the New Deal era, it may be willing to take a fresh look at the separation-of-powers problem present not only here, but also in much of what the federal government does today. 

Religious liberty also matters immensely in this case. A fundamental tenant of American law is that a person should not be forced to violate his religious convictions. After the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision in 2014, the views of a closely held company’s owners have been viewed as the religious views of the company. Therefore, the plaintiffs’ religious liberty is protected both by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993.

Finally, individual liberty is at stake. While COVID-19 is real and deadly, that does not mean that people should be forced to receive vaccines against their will. If the vaccines are effective, then the vaccinated should have nothing to fear from the unvaccinated. This is true especially since the COVID vaccines are new, there are no long-term studies on their side-effects, and people sometimes have severe reactions, including heart conditions or death. 

In this case, ACLL intends to argue not only that the ETS is unjustified under the law governing emergency temporary standards but also that it violates the foregoing principles.