The CDC's Public Transportation Mask Mandate is Struck Down, The Left Argues In Favor of Unlimited Administrative Agency Power
"In pursuit of its policy goals, the left is willing to throw away our republic for an authoritarian form of government."
News & Commentary
On April 18th, in Health Freedom Defense Fund v. Biden, Judge Mizelle of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida struck down the Biden administration's mask mandate on public transportation.
By way of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), President Biden issued a mandate for masks to be worn on public transportation immediately after entering office in January 2021. The District Court ruled that the CDC's mask mandate "exceeded the CDC's statutory authority" and did not follow the notice and comment requirements outlined in the rulemaking process. Judge Mizelle cited established precedent, stating that "our system does not permit agencies to act unlawfully even in pursuit of a desirable ends."
This argument is precisely correct. An administrative agency's intentions are irrelevant when implementing a policy. No matter how noble or nefarious the agency's intentions are, an administrative agency must remain within the bounds of its authority delegated by Congress - in the case of the CDC, that authority is set forth in the Public Health Services Act. Additionally, administrative agencies must adhere to the Administrative Procedure Act's rulemaking process. The District Court found that the CDC violated both laws. Therefore, the mask mandate was deemed unlawful and struck down.
The left has frivolously attacked the Trump-appointed judge, asserting that she struck down the mandate because she made a policy determination that masks are unnecessary. The left goes on to argue that it is dangerous to allow unelected judges to make public health decisions. This critique by the left is logically flawed and deserves further examination.
Judge Mizelle's decision was not a public policy decision. It was purely a legal decision. This is precisely how our system was designed, the courts make legal decisions, and the legislature makes public policy decisions. The judge, in this case, did not rule on whether or not a mask mandate is necessary. Instead, her legal decision was based on the Public Health Services Act and the Administrative Procedure Act. The left's assertion that Judge Mizelle made her decision based on her personal view of masks is farcical. There is undoubtedly a strong policy argument against mandatory masking due to the ineffectiveness of most masks. Yet, Judge Mizelle did not entertain that perspective in this case. She adhered strictly to her duty to determine whether or not the CDC had the authority to mandate mask-wearing on public transportation.
By arguing that judges should not be allowed to review actions by the CDC, the left is implicitly arguing for a system where unelected administrative agency bureaucrats would have unfettered decision-making power with no legal constraints. The judiciary would be stripped of its judicial review power over the executive branch. Ultimately this would provide administrative agencies and the President with unlimited power. Reorienting our system in this way would destroy the balance of power between the three branches of government. It would shift the United States from a constitutional republic to a monarchy or dictatorship. In pursuit of its policy goals, the left is willing to throw away our republic for an authoritarian form of government.
Unsurprisingly, the Biden administration's Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that it would appeal the District Court's decision. The DOJ argued that they are appealing the decision solely because the CDC believes the mask mandate should remain in place. In reality, the Biden administration's goal is to deflect the ire of the American public away from itself, onto the CDC. Ultimately, this will not work; the American citizens understand that President Biden is squarely behind the push to keep the federal mask mandate.
The Biden administration's appeal will almost certainly not matter. The District Court's ruling, in all likelihood, will be upheld. The appeal will be heard by the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. It is widely presumed that the Eleventh Circuit will be sympathetic to the argument that the mandate is unlawful. The court is expected to uphold Judge Mizelle's ruling, striking down the mask mandate. If the Supreme Court eventually hears the case, the same result is expected.
Biden's federal mask mandate for public transportation should have ended over a year ago. Masks, especially cloth and surgical masks, are ineffective at stopping the spread of Covid-19, particularly the Omicron variant. Mandatory masking on airplanes, in particular, was always illogical due to the highly effective HEPA filters and ventilation systems found on airplanes. There are no data to show that planes were significant vectors of Covid-19 transmission throughout the entire pandemic. Of all possible indoor settings one could find themself in during the pandemic, airplanes provided the lowest risk of Covid-19 transmission.
Despite this, Biden extended the mandate numerous times, eventually requiring a Federal District Court to step in and strike down the mandate. The Biden administration can see the writing on the wall. Biden knows that this is the end of the road for his federal Covid power grab. Nonetheless, in a last-ditch effort to continue weaponizing administrative power against the people, the Biden administration is appealing the decision.
Garrett Gillespie graduated Magna Cum Laude from the University of Central Florida with a Bachelor of Arts degree in political science.
The Gillespie Report is a weekly news and conservative commentary column written by Garrett Gillespie. Subscribe to receive the newest edition each week for free.