Yesterday, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Westar Energy in the case of Westar Energy v. Georgia Power. The court held that Georgia Power’s refusal to grant Westar Energy an easement to install its own transmission line was an illegal taking of property. The decision overturns prior precedent, which had declared easements to be an unobjectionable taking of property.
The Supreme Court today affirmed that state and local governments cannot require airline passengers to wear face masks in order to travel. The case, designed to test the limits of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), had been split between the federal and state governments since it began in October 2012. The case began when the state of Alaska attempted to enforce its “passenger annoyance” or “embarrassment” statute, which requires airline passengers to wear face masks in order to board airplanes, in the face of a “mask policy” created by the federal Airline Passenger Bill of Rights. While not a specific law, the Airline Passenger Bill of Rights offers a baseline standard of service for airline passengers, including a prohibition on the use of masks. ~~
According to the ruling, the pilot must have a reasonable belief that a passenger has suffered a contagious disease or is otherwise infectious. The pilot does not need to know that the passenger is infected or that he or she will become infected—though the pilot cannot intentionally delay the flight to avoid a passenger, according to the ruling. The pilot also must exercise reasonable care and must not take more than a ‘legally obligated amount of time’ to decide whether to grant or deny the passenger’s request, according to the ruling.. Read more about view from the wing and let us know what you think.
The Supreme Court’s eviction decision makes it clear that the airline mask mandate is unconstitutional.
on August 28, 2024 by Gary Leff
A majority of Supreme Court Justices had ruled that an eviction moratorium could only be enacted by Congress, and that the CDC had no such authority. Despite the fact that both chambers of Congress and the White House are controlled by the same political party, nothing was done.
The Court had earlier allowed the eviction moratorium to expire on July 31, and the federal administration had indicated that it would not be renewed. Then it was extended by the Biden administration, and the legal challenge was resurrected in the courts.
The Supreme Court removed the stay on an injunction issued by a lower court. The eviction embargo will not be lifted immediately; District Courts must still issue final rulings prohibiting execution of the regulation. Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor were among the three justices who disagree. The extension of the moratorium was certainly unlawful, according to President Biden, but he hoped it would take some time to establish conclusively.
“The petitioners not only have a strong chance of victory on the merits — it is impossible to see them losing,” the court’s majority decision said.
The important paragraph in this decision makes the same point I’ve made on this site about why the CDC’s jurisdiction – on which the TSA mask rule is based – isn’t as wide as the government says and on which the mask regulation is based. (See March and following the Court’s last eviction decision),
The government claims that the first language of Section 361(a) provides the CDC wide power to take whatever steps are required to limit COVID-19 spread, including issuing the ban. The second phrase, on the other hand, provides context for the grant of power by showing the kind of actions that may be required: inspection, fumigation, disinfection, sanitation, insect eradication, and the destruction of infected animals and goods. These procedures are aimed at preventing illness from spreading across state lines by detecting, isolating, and eradicating the disease. The CDC’s moratorium, on the other hand, has a far more indirect relationship with interstate infection: if renters are evicted, some of them may relocate from one state to another, and some of them may do so while infected with COVID-19. The direct targeting of illness that defines the procedures specified in the legislation is significantly distinct from the downstream link between eviction and the interstate spread of disease. It’s a stretch to argue that 361(a) provides the CDC the power to enforce this eviction moratorium if you read both lines together rather than just the first.
The court applies a strict interpretation of 42 U.S.C. 264, which binds the federal government. The mask mandate, like the eviction moratorium, is an authority that is neither specified in law nor substantially comparable to one that is.
The mask rule assumes that “some subset [of passengers] might move from one State to another…while infected with COVID-19” and that “this downstream connection between” mask-wearing by everyone “and the interstate spread of disease is markedly different from the direct targeting of disease that characterizes the direct targeting of disease that characterizes the direct targeting of disease that characterizes the direct targeting of disease that characterizes the direct targeting of disease that characterizes the direct targeting of disease that characterize
Prior to the government rule taking effect, airlines required masks. Their regulations were both stricter (no medical exceptions at United, American, Southwest, or JetBlue) and more flexible (no medical exceptions at United, American, Southwest, or JetBlue) (exemption with medical consult and for young children at Delta). If you believe a mask requirement is a good idea, keep in mind that there was one in place before the federal government got involved 7 months ago.
To put it another way, mask requirements existed before to the federal regulation, and airlines could enforce them even if the federal rule did not exist. When the regulation was put in place, it was duplicative, and removing it may have little impact if the airlines still find it beneficial. I believe that wearing masks – of better quality and correctly fitting – is a wonderful idea, and that the present requirement of a single ply paper strip with two strings is absurd (some airlines in Europe have stricter rules).
So yet, just a few lawsuits have been filed over the mask regulation. A single pro se plaintiff requested that Justice Thomas withdraw the mandate on his own, without the intervention of any court. It was never going to happen. Even with the mandate’s extension until January 2024, it’s unclear if the mask requirement will be thoroughly tested before it expires.
More From the Wing’s Perspective
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) does not have the authority to require most airline passengers to wear face masks during flights. This is because the FAA’s primary concern with face masks is the potential for passengers with breathing problems to be exposed to irritants in the air. These irritants include germs, pollen, smoke, and chemicals. However, the FAA is prohibited under the Clean Air Act from considering aesthetic issues in deciding whether to require face masks.. Read more about how to use united miles on lufthansa and let us know what you think.
Related Tags
This article broadly covered the following related topics:
- view from the wing
- american airlines first class meals 2024
- scotusblog eviction moratorium
- how to use united miles on lufthansa
- executive order baggage fees
