what are you talking about?
While he failed to provide the needed context, it's fairly clear he's asking whether Biden's vaccine mandate will be upheld in the same manner as the ACA's health insurance mandate.
First off, he didn't impose vaccine mandates on State or local governments, so frankly Republican AGs and Governors won't have standing to use, as they did concerning Medicaid expansion. There likely will be some affected employer that does have standing, but the grandstanding Republican politicians will have to make do with filing amicus briefs in such suits rather than arguing the case themselves.
Second, the "is it a tax" argument in
NFIB v. Sebelius was only needed because of the finding that the health insurance mandate was not a proper use of the Commerce Clause. Since the mandate only applies to health care providers accepting Medicare or Medicaid and to large employers, I don't see where it gets to the point where the "is it a tax" argument even has to be considered.
However, if by some chance a challenge to the vaccine mandate gets to the "is it a tax" argument, the vaccine mandate probably fails. Congress has to levy a tax and I doubt the provision of law Biden is using would likely be seen as a tax.
Say Dems pass a law through reconciliation that fine companies over 100 employees for not taking vaccine. It will end up at SC. Will Roberts and Kavanaugh consider it as a tax for the company?
If Congress were to reinforce the vaccine mandate with legislation providing for a fine with noncompliance, then it probably passes the "is it tax" argument. I see no reason to believe the court desires to either revisit or call into question
NFIB. However, as I stated earlier, this vaccine mandate has a much better chance of being seen as a proper use of Commerce Clause authority since it isn't an individual mandate as the health insurance mandate was.
