skip to Main Content

The return of the vaccination mandate for health personnel and sovereign immunity for a Turkish bank


This week, we highlight cert petitions that ask the Supreme Court to review, among other things, the Biden administration’s vaccination mandate for healthcare workers and a Turkish bank’s immunity request.

In Missouri vs. Bidenthe judges face a petition asking them to thoroughly examine the Biden administration’s vaccination policy for healthcare workers. The mandate requires nearly all healthcare workers at facilities that participate in Medicare and Medicaid to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19, unless they qualify for a medical or religious exemption. On Jan. 13, 2022, judges ruled on an emergency basis that the administration can enforce that mandate as Missouri and other states challenge it in lower courts. In March, the states asked the United States Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit for an expedited hearing, but in April the 8th Circuit sent the case back to the district court to determine the merits of the request. Missouri Permanent Repair. The states then filed their petition in May, bringing a mix of administrative, constitutional and statutory arguments. They are asking that the justices demand that the government file its objection brief within 30 days without extension so that the justices can hear the argument at its first session in October 2022. (Also on January 13, the justices suspended the administration’s vaccine-testing policy or for employers with 100 or more employees, in National Federation of Independent Businesses c. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration.)

In Turkiye Halk Bankasi AS v. United States, a Turkish bank is asking the court to review its request for protection from criminal prosecution. In his petition, Halkbank describes itself as a majority Turkish-owned bank that the US government has not challenged as Turkey for jurisdictional purposes. Federal prosecutors have indicted Halkbank in a scheme, according to the government, to “create a pool of Iranian oil funds in Turkey and the United Arab Emirates.” The United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Halkbank’s motion to dismiss on the basis that the federal court had jurisdiction over the foreign sovereign under the general criminal law, which gives district courts jurisdiction over “all offenses against the laws of the United States.” In contrast, according to Halkbank’s motion, the United States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit held that because the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act grants district courts jurisdiction over foreign sovereigns only in civil matters, district courts do not have such jurisdiction in criminal matters.

These and others petitions of the week are below:

Turkiye Halk Bankasi AS v. United States
Publish: Can U.S. District Courts Exercise Subject Matter Jurisdiction Over Criminal Proceedings Against Foreign Sovereigns and Their Instruments Under 18 U.S.C. § 3231 and in the light of Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.

Northport Health Services of Arkansas, LLC v. Department of Health and Social Services
Problems: (1) If the Federal Arbitration Law is indifferent to rules that penalize the parties for using arbitration agreements but leave enforceable the notional agreements that the parties enter into despite these sanctions; and (2) whether the Department of Health and Human Services can enact a rule that distinguishes agreements to arbitrate for disadvantaged treatment, even though Congress has nowhere expressly authorized HHS to override the FAA or its federal policy favoring arbitration.

Missouri vs. Biden
Problems: (1) If the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services vaccination mandate of November 5, 2021 for workers in most federally funded healthcare facilities violates the Administrative Procedure Act because it is arbitrary, capricious and illegal; (2) whether the warrant is unconstitutional under the Constitution’s spending clause, the anti-requisition doctrine, and the 10th Amendment; (3) if the warrant violates the APA because it was issued without notice or comment; and (4) if the mandate exceeds the statutory authority of CMS.

Johnson vs. Winfrey
Problems: (1) If a law enforcement officer violates a law clearly established under the decision of the Supreme Court in Franks v. Delaware if the officer does not include information in an affidavit that may be material to probable cause, regardless of whether an objective officer could reasonably believe that the submitted affidavit supported probable cause; (2) if not, if Malley vs. Briggs provides the appropriate method of analysis to determine an officer’s immunity when information that may be material to probable cause is not included in the affidavit, or a different standard applies; and (3) whether compensation or contribution is available in a claim brought under 42 USC § 1983 as six Circuits argued, or whether Section 1983 claims allow a plaintiff to obtain double recovery, as three Circuits argued.

Back To Top