Judge Throws Out Federal Mask Mandate for Public Transportation

[Herdfan]

And she’s made a public health decision affecting millions. That is ridiculous by any measure.

And yet the Administration has yet to appeal. They could have requested a stay from her or from the Appeals court.

Wonder why? Or why not?

She also threw it out for the country, not only her district in Florida. On the logic that it couldn't be lifted for just the people involved in the actual lawsuit.

I will say that I don't think District Judges should be able to create rulings that affect the entire country. Only their District same as Appeals Court rulings.

Don't think either side would be happy with that, so its probably a good idea.

 

[fooferdoggie]

And yet the Administration has yet to appeal. They could have requested a stay from her or from the Appeals court.

Wonder why? Or why not?

because the cdc was close to dropping it.

 

[Herdfan]

because the cdc was close to dropping it.

Maybe. But they probably should challenge the ruling in case they want to reimpose it.

 

[SuperMatt]

because the cdc was close to dropping it.

I also think the reasoning in the ruling is absurd; many paragraphs spent pontificating about the definition of “sanitation” and a bizarre fixation on just a small excerpt of the law that created the CDC. Then, cherry-pick a few past cases to supposedly back up the opinion, et voila! You’re a judge! I read through it, and I believe there’s little chance it will stand as precedent. Since the pandemic started, this is the first judge to shut down the mask mandate on public transportation, so you can see what an outlier this is.

Challenging it would be a waste of time and resources for basically no reward. If a new deadly wave of COVID-19 or another disease comes along, they can handle it then.

 

[SuperMatt]

What to know about Judge Kathryn Mizelle, who struck down the travel mask mandate

Mizelle was nominated by former President Donald Trump in 2020 at age 33. The American Bar Association said at the time she wasn't qualified because she hadn't been practicing law for long enough.

www.npr.org

In short: a 33-year old with a spouse working for the Trump administration and a history of far-right legal activism, and ZERO trial experience gets a lifetime appointment. Enjoy 50 more years of extreme ideological decisions from this woman.

Oh, and by the way, she filed an amicus brief against OSHA COVID emergency rules to protect workers before becoming a judge... but didn’t recuse herself from this. So she already had her mind made up on this before she even got the case.

 

[Alli]

I don’t care. I will continue to wear my mask.

 

[MEJHarrison]

I don’t care. I will continue to wear my mask.

Same here. As dumb as I think this ruling is, it won't stop me from wearing mine.

 

[DT]

I don’t care. I will continue to wear my mask.

If the flight crew would've come out on our weekend+ trip we just took and dropped the "Congrats, you don't have to wear your mask", I would've been more than happy to tell them to f*** off, I'm wearing mine

 

[Herdfan]

I don’t care. I will continue to wear my mask.

Exactly.

I would love to see a study comparing 2 people wearing cloth masks vs 1 person wearing an N95. Plenty of studies showing N95 is better, but what I want to see is whether a person wearing an N95 is better protected when around someone not wearing a mask vs 2 people each wearing cloth.

 

[Citysnaps]

I would love to see a study comparing 2 people wearing cloth masks vs 1 person wearing an N95. Plenty of studies showing N95 is better, but what I want to see is whether a person wearing an N95 is better protected when around someone not wearing a mask vs 2 people each wearing cloth.

In the past I've seen such charts by the CDC, IIRC (I'll try and find one). And two people masked was substantially better than one.

 

[Herdfan]

In the past I've seen such charts by the CDC, IIRC (I'll try and find one). And two people masked was substantially better than one.

Two people with cloth masks vs 1 with cloth, sure. But what if the 1 was wearing an N95?

Basically the question is if someone is wearing an N95, does it matter what anyone else is doing?

 

[Citysnaps]

Two people with cloth masks vs 1 with cloth, sure. But what if the 1 was wearing an N95?

Basically the question is if someone is wearing an N95, does it matter what anyone else is doing?

Here's a chart that I found that plays one person infected against another person non-infected, for different types of masks. There's a better chart out there. The flaw with this one is it was published before the Omicron variant, which is more infectious/virulent, was in the wild. So I suspect the absolute times are less. The ratios? Maybe or maybe not the same.

In other words, not something I'd rely on. Still safe to say if I was wearing an N95 mask on a plane, and had an infected person sitting next to me without a mask, I'd definitely be nervous. If they were sneezing? Yikes!

I think a for-sure take-away is wear a high quality (3M, Honeywell, etc) N95 mask and keep it sealed tight.

EDIT: No mention if the uninfected person is vaccinated and to what level. And, no mention about distance between infected and uninfected people, air flow/replacement, etc. So..... beats me.

 

[SuperMatt]

The justice department is considering challenging the ruling against the mask mandate.

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1516541173799788554/

 

[Herdfan]

The justice department is considering challenging the ruling against the mask mandate.

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1516541173799788554/

I think they have to. Because if they don't, they can't simply reinstate it if necessary. So they need a ruling in their favor.

 

[SuperMatt]

I thought Ruth Marcus summed it up pretty well in her column today:

Maybe it’s time to end the mask mandate for airplanes, trains and public transport. Maybe it’s prudent to keep it in place. I’m not sure, but I do know this: That decision should be made by federal policymakers — not by a single district court judge who was ideologically predisposed to strike down the mask rule and who then contorted the law to achieve that goal.

Perhaps the law needs to be strengthened? Imagine how many more deaths we would have had if she issued this ruling at the beginning of the pandemic and stopped all preventative measures?

If we are going to have a CDC, they need to have some teeth to impose restrictions during emergencies especially. Otherwise, why are we spending tax dollars on them in the first place?

The far-right activist judges seem to buy into the “all government is bad” belief. All government, that is, except them of course. They will gladly keep their lifetime job, use it to promote their political agenda, and cash those government checks twice a month.

Her conclusion is quite biting…

This is advocacy masquerading as lawgiving. Somin is more sympathetic to Mizelle than I am, but consider his assessment: “At times, Judge Mizelle’s opinion reads as if she is taking a kitchen sink approach to defending her ruling — throwing out every argument she can, good, bad, or indifferent. This strategy makes sense in high school debate, and perhaps for some legal briefs. But it isn’t a good idea for judges ruling on a case, especially an important one.”

 

[MEJHarrison]

The justice department is considering challenging the ruling against the mask mandate.

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1516541173799788554/

"The Department of Justice... will appeal, subject to CDC's conclusion that the order remains necessary for public health." That's how it SHOULD be!

I must say, if at the end of the day doctors are able overturn the judge's ruling (though the DOJ), that would be hilarious. And appropriate given that the judge feels qualified to overturn the advice of medical experts on a public health issue.

 

[SuperMatt]

"The Department of Justice... will appeal, subject to CDC's conclusion that the order remains necessary for public health." That's how it SHOULD be!

I must say, if at the end of the day doctors are able overturn the judge's ruling (though the DOJ), that would be hilarious. And appropriate given that the judge feels qualified to overturn the advice of medical experts on a public health issue.

I heard on the radio this morning that the DoJ is reluctant to appeal because if they lose the appeal, that could be considered a precedent. If that happens, it could mean the CDC would have less power to prevent future health crises.

 

[Herdfan]

I heard on the radio this morning that the DoJ is reluctant to appeal because if they lose the appeal, that could be considered a precedent. If that happens, it could mean the CDC would have less power to prevent future health crises.

How is that any different that the current situation? I understand the reluctance, but they need this overturned.

 

[Cmaier]

I heard on the radio this morning that the DoJ is reluctant to appeal because if they lose the appeal, that could be considered a precedent. If that happens, it could mean the CDC would have less power to prevent future health crises.

Makes no sense. It’s already a precedent.

 

[SuperMatt]

Makes no sense. It’s already a precedent.

According to legal experts quoted below, appeals court decisions have more weight than the decision of a single judge when it comes to precedent.

Mizelle's opinion also restricts the CDC's ability to respond to public health emergencies in ways it deems appropriate, and if the opinion is upheld by a federal appeals court or the U.S. Supreme Court, legal experts warn it could hobble the government's ability to control future outbreaks.

"If this particular type of opinion took on greater precedential value as it rises up through the court system, if that happens, it's big trouble for CDC down the road," said James Hodge, a law professor at Arizona State University.

More info in the full article:

The judge who tossed mask mandate misunderstood public health law, legal experts say

Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle's decision hinged on a definition of the word 'sanitation' that public health experts and legal scholars say missed the mark.

www.npr.org