Mandate Disobedience: Law Breaking Or Civil Disobedience?

The COVID-19 pandemic has brought about a new set of rules and regulations that people have to follow. One of the most common mandates that have been enforced is the mask mandate. However, there are many instances where people are not following this mandate, and it brings up the question of whether not following a mandate is breaking the law. Executive orders are similar to statutes and represent the law of the land. A violation can result in civil sanctions or criminal penalties. In the case of COVID-19, the U.S. Supreme Court has allowed certain mandates, such as the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) mandate, which requires healthcare workers to be vaccinated.

Executive orders are similar to statutes and can be issued by the President, state governors, and mayors

Executive orders are directives issued by the head of the executive branch, such as the President, a state governor, or a local mayor. They are similar to statutes in that they represent the law of the land and violations can result in civil sanctions or criminal penalties. However, executive orders do not require approval from Congress and can be issued by the President, state governors, and mayors to carry out their duties, protect the public, and respond to emergencies.

Executive orders have the same effect as laws created through the legislative process but go through a simpler process that often bypasses the legislative branch. They can be used to perform a variety of tasks, ranging from administrative and management issues to emergency responses in the face of a disaster or crisis. For example, an executive order might create a new government agency, manage administrative issues, implement a new program, or advance initiatives such as equity in hiring or energy conservation.

State governors and local mayors often use executive orders to respond quickly to crises, such as natural disasters, riots, or pandemics. They can declare a state of emergency, which gives them the authority to issue emergency orders to protect life and property. These orders can include directives such as evacuating areas expected to be impacted by a hurricane or wildfire, imposing curfews during violent riots, or directing businesses and schools to close to contain the spread of infectious diseases.

It is important to note that the authority of the executive branch head to issue executive orders is limited by law. If they exceed their authority, the order, along with its implementation and enforcement, can be challenged under applicable state or federal law, the state constitution, or the U.S. Constitution. Executive orders are subject to judicial review and may be overturned if they lack support by statute or the Constitution.

In summary, executive orders are similar to statutes in their legal effect and can be issued by the President, state governors, and mayors. They serve as a tool to carry out the duties of the executive branch, protect the public, and respond to emergencies, but their authority is limited and they can be challenged and overturned if found to be unlawful.

Violating an executive order can result in civil sanctions or criminal penalties

Executive orders are written, signed, and published directives from the head of the executive branch, such as the President, a state governor, or a local mayor. They are the law of the land, and violations can result in civil sanctions or criminal penalties.

The President, state governors, and mayors issue executive orders to carry out their duties, protect the public, and respond to emergencies. These orders can be used to perform a variety of tasks, from administrative issues to emergency responses in the face of a crisis. For example, during the COVID-19 pandemic, governors issued executive orders to close non-essential businesses, mandate remote work, and enforce social distancing.

The consequences for violating an executive order can vary depending on the type of violation and the violator. In general, penalties may include civil fines, administrative or business licensing repercussions, or criminal penalties. For instance, a business may temporarily lose its operating license for violating a shut-down order, while violations of curfews or evacuation orders typically result in criminal penalties, such as a misdemeanor penalty, fine, or both.

The enforcement authority for executive orders often depends on the type of violation. State or local health officials may enforce quarantine or isolation orders, while police typically enforce curfews, stay-at-home orders, and other criminal violations.

It is important to note that the law limits the authority of the executive branch head in issuing executive orders. If the head of the executive branch exceeds their authority, the order and its implementation can be challenged under applicable state or federal law, the state constitution, or the U.S. Constitution.

Mandates can be applied either vertically or horizontally

Vertical Mandates

Vertical mandates apply to a specific application or sector. For example, in the context of taxation, vertical devolution refers to the distribution of tax proceeds between the central government and the states. In the context of AI regulation, vertical regulation applies to a specific application of AI or a specific sector. The regulatory authority for vertical mandates may be delegated to an industry body.

Horizontal Mandates

Horizontal mandates apply uniformly across all sectors and applications. In the context of taxation, horizontal devolution refers to the distribution of tax proceeds among the states themselves. In the context of AI regulation, horizontal regulation applies to all applications of AI across all sectors. The regulatory authority for horizontal mandates often lies with the central government.

Advantages and Disadvantages

The vertical model is flexible and allows industry bodies to make provisions for differences across sectors and to optimize regulation to meet the specific needs of the industry. On the other hand, the horizontal model is uniform and stable, enabling the central government to guarantee that all sectors meet the same standards. The horizontal model also gives citizens a stable set of assurances and rights in their interactions with AI.

The US Supreme Court blocked OSHA's COVID-19 vaccine mandate for employees of large companies

In the United States, executive orders are issued by the President, state governors, and mayors to carry out their duties, protect the public, and respond to emergencies. These orders have the same effect as laws created through the legislative process but go through a simpler process that often bypasses the legislative branch.

On January 13, 2022, the US Supreme Court blocked a federal mandate requiring employees of large companies to get the COVID-19 vaccine or undergo weekly testing. The mandate, issued by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) in November 2021, required companies with 100 or more workers to ensure their employees are fully vaccinated or regularly tested and wear face coverings at work.

In its ruling, the Supreme Court's conservative majority wrote that the OSHA mandate overstepped its legal authority and is "otherwise unlawful." This means that while the federal government can no longer enforce the mandate, states and private businesses can still impose their own vaccine mandates as long as state laws do not prevent them from doing so.

The Supreme Court's decision was a significant setback for President Joe Biden's attempts to use the power of the federal government to fight the COVID-19 pandemic. Biden expressed disappointment in the ruling, stating that his administration has the right to impose such a mandate to protect workplace safety.

Following the Supreme Court's decision, the US Department of Health and Human Services affirmed that employers can still require COVID-19 vaccines for their employees. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission also stated that federal equal employment opportunity (EEO) laws do not prevent employers from requiring employees to be vaccinated as long as it is not discriminatory against specific groups.

While not following a mandate does not automatically equate to breaking the law, in the context of executive orders, violating an order can result in civil sanctions or criminal penalties. The specific penalties for non-compliance depend on the type of violation and can include civil fines, administrative or business licensing repercussions, or criminal penalties such as misdemeanors or fines.

In the case of the COVID-19 vaccine mandate for large companies, the Supreme Court determined that OSHA did not have the authority to regulate public health and that the mandate fell outside the scope of its power to regulate occupational dangers. This ruling sent a clear message that while OSHA could not require vaccinations for employees of large companies, states and individual employers could still make their own decisions about vaccine mandates to protect their workplaces and consumers during the pandemic.

Twenty US states have banned local authorities from mandating COVID-19 vaccines or proof of vaccination

In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, mandates have been issued by various authorities to curb the spread of the virus. These mandates often take the form of executive orders, which are directives issued by the head of the executive branch, such as the President, a state governor, or a local mayor. Executive orders carry the same weight as laws passed through the legislative process, and non-compliance can result in civil or criminal penalties.

However, the authority to issue executive orders is not absolute, and they can be challenged if the issuing authority exceeds its authority or if the order is deemed unconstitutional. As of July 2021, twenty US states had prohibited proof-of-vaccination requirements at some or all levels of government, with most of these prohibitions applying only to government agencies. Notably, Texas and Florida implemented broader restrictions, barring private businesses from requiring proof of vaccination.

The enforcement of mandates has been a point of contention, with some arguing that the lack of enforcement undermines their effectiveness. For example, in New York, a mask-or-vaccinate mandate was met with resistance from businesses and counties, which refused to enforce it or comply with its requirements. This highlights the challenges faced by authorities in implementing and enforcing public health measures during a pandemic.

The resistance to mandates extends beyond mask and vaccine requirements, with some states banning local authorities from mandating COVID-19 vaccines or proof of vaccination altogether. As of August 2021, twenty states had passed legislation or issued orders prohibiting proof-of-vaccination requirements, while four states had assisted in creating digital vaccination status applications. This indicates a significant portion of the country opposed to vaccine mandates and the requirement to provide proof of vaccination.

The debate surrounding vaccine mandates and proof-of-vaccination requirements is complex and multifaceted, involving legal, ethical, and public health considerations. While mandates are intended to protect public health, their implementation and enforcement can be challenging, and non-compliance can undermine their effectiveness. As the COVID-19 pandemic continues to evolve, authorities must navigate a delicate balance between protecting public health and respecting individual freedoms.

Frequently asked questions