Noting how the first three lawsuits were dropped, the fourth lawsuit seeks to claim that the Obama administration’s mandate to wear face masks while riding the public transportation is unconstitutional, and infringes on individual freedom.
In 2012, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) began a lawsuit to challenge a law that requires anyone who takes public transportation to wear a mask as a gesture of good faith. The law, enacted in 1997, requires the use of a mask when taking public transportation, such as a subway, bus, or train, as this is the only method of protecting against airborne diseases such as measles, tuberculosis, and influenza. The law was meant to protect against the spread of diseases that could be carried by a person without their knowledge.
The 4th Amendment’s Protection of the Right to Be Forgotten, or the right to be “unmasked” when exiting a public transportation vehicle, is now being threatened by federal rulings that are not consistent with the intent of the Supreme Court in the 1990s.. Read more about mask mandate biden and let us know what you think.
The Health Freedom Defense Fund (HFDF) issued the fourth lawsuit against the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC) and President Joseph Biden in an effort to end the CDC’s mandate that ordered that all individuals using public transportation must wear masks to prevent the spread of COVID-19.
Ana Daza and Sarah Pope, two Americans who believe the mask requirement is unconstitutional, have joined the HFDF in its case. The federal mask mandate on public transportation “1) exceeds CDC’s statutory and regulatory authority; 2) was ordered without the required notice and comment under the Administrative Procedure Act; 3) is arbitrary and capricious; 4) constitutes an unlawful delegation and exercise of legislative power; and 5) violates the 10th Amendment,” according to their argument.
What’s Hot Right Now
The identical arguments were raised in Wall v. CDC, a previous action brought in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. Corbett v. TSA and Mahwikizi v. CDC are two of the other cases.
These legal battles will be similar to the one Florida filed against the CDC earlier this year over the CDC’s requirements to restart the cruise industry, which included a vaccination requirement for all crewmembers and most passengers onboard cruise ships; one district judge initially ruled in Florida’s favor, while the next, made by a circuit court of appeals, ruled in the opposite direction.
Anti-mask rhetoric has grown in popularity over the last year and a half, posing a safety risk; violent events on public transit, particularly on aircraft, have reached record levels, with almost three-quarters of these episodes originating from passengers refusing to wear a mask.
This July, the FAA recorded the greatest number of accidents since 1995. It became so terrible that pilots and crew members formed organizations and unions to demand harsher punishments for disruptive passengers, who often get violent when they don’t get their way. Currently, the consequences for this conduct include a fine of up to $100,000 and/or a sentence to federal prison of up to twenty years.
In May, a research showed that having a mask requirement in place made individuals feel more secure and comfortable in the air; the findings were a stunning 91 percent approval rating for wearing masks. However, with the increase in vaccinations and the removal of mask requirements in virtually every other sector of the country, that acceptance rate may have decreased since then.
The mask requirement is about to expire on September 13, and the CDC is faced with a major decision: given the increasing worry about the Delta strain, it may decide to prolong the mandate in order to prevent it from spreading in the air.
A man in Indiana has filed a class-action lawsuit against the state’s transportation department, claiming that the state’s requirement for licensed drivers to wear a face mask while driving their motor vehicles in public violates the state’s ban on wearing “any device, mask, hood, or other covering, for the face, that is worn to conceal the face.” The plaintiff, John Forney, argues that his right to privacy “has been violated” because the state “mandates the wearing of a mask” on his face, which “violates his right to be free of exposure to dangerous drivers and the public at large.” “It is a fundamental right that we all should have here in Indiana,” Forney said. “The mask is used to hide. Read more about double masking for covid and let us know what you think.
This article broadly covered the following related topics:
- cdc mask mandate
- biden mask mandate
- cdc mask guidelines
- double mask mandate
- double masking