UPDATE:美国最高法院在12月21日定于1月7日设定了一次特别的听证会，以听取口头辩论，以对是否授予美国职业安全和健康管理局的紧急临时标准的紧急裁决以要求接种疫苗接种或每周对拥有100名或更多工人的所有雇主进行每周测试，同时审查该案的法律价值。

高等法院的诉讼是在12月17日由俄亥俄州辛辛那提市的三名法官小组裁决之后的联邦上诉法院to lift a stay that had been set earlier by the New Orleans appellate court.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, on Dec. 20, asked the Biden administration to respond by Dec. 30 to the appeals, signalling that the high court would rule on the vaccine mandate halt through written briefs from challengers and the Biden administration.

The high court's decision to hear the expedited oral arguments is "a rare instance — and possibly the first in decades — of the court hearing arguments on an application for a stay," says Bloomberg Law, The court is not set to resume its normal operations until Jan. 10.

The justices also will decide split decisions in lower courts over the Biden administration vaccination mandate applying to workers on federal Medicare and Medicaid programs.

辛辛那提在扭转了新奥尔良法院对逗留的裁决时，法院法官简·斯特兰奇（Jane Stranch）写道：“根据法定定义，任何包括病毒在内的特工（包括毒性'（即有毒，毒性）或“物理上有害”的任何代理人，(i.e., causing bodily harm) falls within OSHA’s purview. She said that "an agent that causes bodily harm—a virus—falls squarely within the scope of that definition," which put the vaccination or testing mandate back on track to go into effect Feb. 9, according to OSHA.

Stranch, who was appointed to the circuit by President Obama, also wrote that the OSHA standard "is an important step in curtailing the transmission of a deadly virus that has killed over 800,000 people in the United States, brought our healthcare system to its knees, forced businesses to shut down for months on end" and "a stay would risk compromising these numbers, indisputably a significant injury to the public. The harm to the Government and the public interest outweighs any irreparable injury to the individual Petitioners who may be subject to a vaccination policy."

The petitioners in the case,被称为BST Holdings vs. Osha，包括相关的总承包商和全国房屋建筑商协会，以及许多州，他们都选择直接向美国最高法院提出上诉，以应对上诉法院的裁决，以直接向美国最高法院上诉。其他请愿人，包括关联的建筑商和承包商以及工业电气承包商，于12月20日单独提出上诉。

27 states and dozens of businesses and organizations joined the lawsuit against OSHA.

In a statement, a US Labor Dept. spokesperson said OSHA is "gratified" by the decision. "To provide employers with sufficient time to come into compliance, OSHA will not issue citations for noncompliance with any requirements of the ETS before January 10 and will not issue citations for noncompliance with the standard’s testing requirements before February 9, so long as an employer is exercising reasonable, good-faith efforts to come into compliance with the standard."

The department did not immediately specify what a reasonable, good-faith effort would be. The ETS will effect roughly 84 million workers who work for large employers, including contractors.

As part of its reasoning for setting the number of employees at 100 for the standard's vaccination or testing mandate and not creating separate rules for separate industries, the OSHA emergency standard states that the approach will allow the mandate to apply to two-thirds of all US private-sector workers, reaching the largest facilities where the most deadly outbreaks of COVID-19 can occur.

AGC说过a persistent shortage of qualified workers is a major reason construction unemployment across the nation has only grown from pre-pandemic levels in 18 states and Washington, D.C., according to the association's recent analysis of federal employment data.

In a letter to its members Dec. 18, AGC reiterated it is "a party to the proceedings," but also encouraged increasing vaccination rates among members' workforces to comply with the ETS requirements andpointedmembers to its vaccine toolkit webpage. ABC also encouraged members to get their employees vaccinated while opposing the federal OSHA mandate.

“美国广播公司今天向美国最高法院提出紧急呼吁，以保持ETS，因为它造成了过多的合规成本和为创建求职者的监管负担，并在已经与材料价格上涨，供应链中的中断和供应链中的上涨，供应链中的价格上涨和供应链中威胁到国民经济。新利18备用官网登录workforce shortages," said Ben Brubeck, ABC vice president of regulatory, labor and state affairs. "ABC continues to encourage vaccination but rejects the damaging regulatory overreach that exceeds the Department of Labor’s statutory authority."