Morning Wire XX
[0] On Thursday, the White House released the finalized OSHA rule, which mandates all companies with 100 or more employees, enforce vaccine mandates or weekly testing.
[1] But some are pushing back.
[2] We'll look at the new OSHA mandate and the arguments in a new lawsuit against the Biden administration filed by the Daily Wire.
[3] I'm John Bickley with Georgia Howe.
[4] It's Friday, November 5th, and this is Morning Wire.
[5] On Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard arguments on a Second Amendment case that could broaden gun rights and allow citizens to carry concealed weapons for public defense.
[6] We'll break down the legal arguments for both sides and what a decision could mean for millions of Americans.
[7] And after more than 500 days, Australia has opened its international borders.
[8] Sort of.
[9] Who is eligible to enter the country?
[10] And how does this move reflect Australia's changing approach to COVID -19?
[11] Thanks for waking up with Morning Wire.
[12] Stay tuned.
[13] We have the news you need to know.
[14] This show is sponsored by CrowdHealth.
[15] You deserve health care freedom.
[16] Introducing CrowdHealth, a community of people who care about health, health care freedom, and each other.
[17] 100 % of your monthly contribution pays for actual health care costs.
[18] No enrollment periods, limiting doctor networks, or messy contracts.
[19] Just go to join CrowdHealth .com and enter code Daily Wire for a special offer.
[20] CrowdHealth is not health insurance.
[21] It's a community -powered alternative.
[22] Terms and conditions may apply.
[23] On Thursday, the federal government revealed a much -anticipated and controversial OSHA rule, requiring large companies to enforce COVID -19 vaccinations for employees.
[24] Almost immediately, companies, including the Daily Wire, shot back with legal challenges.
[25] Here to walk us through the details of the OSHA rule, as well as the Daily Wire's lawsuit challenging it, is Daily Wire in -house counsel Josh Her.
[26] Josh, thanks for jumping in our recording booth today.
[27] Excited to have you.
[28] Happy to be here.
[29] So first off, tell us about this OHAO.
[30] show rule that was just released Thursday?
[31] Sure.
[32] So this order is basically a vaccination mandate for private businesses with more than 100 employees.
[33] It goes into effect on January 4 of next year, and it requires companies to become the enforcement arm of vaccine mandates by forcing them to verify that their employees are vaccinated.
[34] If they refuse, they either have to be tested weekly and wear a mask at all times or they'll be fired.
[35] President Biden's description of the policy is that, quote, this is not about freedom or personal choice.
[36] And they gave this rule some serious teeth.
[37] If a company fails to enforce this vaccine mandate, it's subject to fines of over $13 ,000 per occurrence.
[38] But if OSHA deems a business to be a, quote, egregious or repeat violator, it can find a company up to $136 ,000 for each employee who does not comply over and over again per occurrence.
[39] 136 ,000 per occurrence.
[40] That's right.
[41] That's stunning.
[42] One of the other surprising things about this rule is that it's being promulgated in the form of an emergency temporary standard or ETS.
[43] This is the procedure OSHA uses when it claims the danger to employees is, quote, grave, and there's no time for ordinary rulemaking.
[44] In this case, OSHA bypassed to the ordinary period for public comment, claiming that this was an emergency.
[45] But it's been two months since the administration announced the rule, and it's going to be another two months before it goes into effect.
[46] And the administration is using all of that time to consult privately with labor unions and not the public.
[47] Meanwhile, some companies, including our own, are pushing back.
[48] So tell us a bit about Daily Wire's lawsuit.
[49] What's your main argument?
[50] Yeah, we're filing a motion to stay enforcement of the ETS with the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which makes several arguments.
[51] First of all, we're arguing that the federal government has no power under the Constitution to force half of the U .S. private sector workforce to be vaccinated against their will or to endure repeated medical testing as a condition of earning a living.
[52] Second, we're arguing that even if the federal government did have that power, Congress never delegated that power to OSHA.
[53] So a rule of this nature would be in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, making it unconstitutional.
[54] It essentially bypasses the people's will because it bypasses the legislature.
[55] Got it.
[56] And then there are several other administrative law problems with the ETS, including that the administration used its time to consult with labor unions and progressive groups behind closed doors, rather than opening it to the public comment before publishing the rule.
[57] Okay.
[58] And then finally, there is the pragmatic business argument, which is that this mandate is, frankly, an HR nightmare.
[59] Yeah.
[60] It exposes businesses to liability to their employees.
[61] It forces our company, for example, to require our employees to divulge to us personal health information and potentially identify their religious affiliation.
[62] And that opens the door to liability under privacy laws, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Civil Rights Act, and other laws.
[63] Yeah, I could see a lot of complications there.
[64] So how confident are you in this case?
[65] Well, we've made it pretty clear that we will not comply with this mandate.
[66] So you could say we're pretty confident.
[67] But the Dillon Law Group and Alliance Defending Freedom are both representing us in this case, and there's no one I have to trust more with this.
[68] All right.
[69] Well, we're obviously very interested to see where this goes.
[70] Thanks for taking the time to explain that all to us.
[71] No problem.
[72] There was Josh Her, General Counsel for the Daily Wire.
[73] You can get this show and all of the content you love wherever you are, all on the Daily Wire app.
[74] Even if you're not a Daily Wire member, you'll be the first to know what's trending with mobile notifications for the latest news, and you'll get content from all your favorite Daily Wire shows.
[75] Download the Daily Wire app and keep up with the facts, no matter where your day takes you.
[76] After imposing strict travel bans throughout the COVID -19 pandemic, Australian officials announced that they would finally be allowing citizens, permanent residents and some tourists to enter the country under specific conditions.
[77] Here to tell us more is Daily Wires Ian Howarth.
[78] So, Ian, what's the latest from Australia?
[79] While Australian politicians are celebrating that the country's borders are finally open, at least to some extent.
[80] Good evening, the Arrivals Hall at Sydney Airport.
[81] Welcome back the sound of tears and laughter today as our international border reopened.
[82] Fully vaccinated people are now able to travel from New Zealand if they test negative for COVID -19.
[83] before leaving, and they won't need to quarantine in certain states.
[84] The next set of foreign visitors who can visit Australia will be those coming from Singapore after November 21st.
[85] And Australian Airline Qantas resumed international operations with flights between Sydney, London and Los Angeles.
[86] So tourism is opening up again, and I also assume we're going to see more repatriation.
[87] Yes, and as we've talked about a lot on Morning Wire, Australia's COVID strategy was incredibly strict, including closing the border for almost 600 days.
[88] And by closing the border, I mean no one in or out, and this includes Australian citizens, at least without quarantine and waiting lists.
[89] From Monday onwards, fully vaccinated Australians and their families can return without quarantine to New South Wales and Victoria, and Australian citizens and permanent residents can now leave the country without an exemption.
[90] One of the obvious results of the strict lockdown policy has meant vast numbers of family separations.
[91] We've been trying to get in for a year and a half, and my dad actually, he was terminally ill, but we're trying to come in as soon as possible, but he passed away.
[92] week ago.
[93] And I really want to highlight that Australia's closed border policy included closing the border to its own citizens and enforcing mandatory quarantine, which is almost unique among the countries we saw implement travel bans in reaction to the pandemic.
[94] Thousands of Australians were basically stranded abroad because of fewer flights and weekly limits on how many people were able to come in.
[95] Right.
[96] I mean, a lot of countries had travel bans.
[97] So how did Australia's restrictions compare to those other travel bans?
[98] Well, it's vaguely similar.
[99] For example, the travel ban on visitors to the U .S. put in place by Donald Trump and extended by President Joe Biden is being lifted this month, but again for vaccinated travelers only.
[100] The restrictions are also going to be removed on a country -by -country basis.
[101] What really sets Australia apart from most countries, including the U .S., is that its goal was to achieve zero COVID, which meant imposing drastically strict lockdown measures to try and keep the number of COVID cases and deaths as close to zero as possible.
[102] And while they did keep the numbers significantly lower than other comparable countries, as we've discussed before, this sparked a huge debate over the cost, specifically when it comes to basic freedoms.
[103] And this looks likely to continue as travel restrictions remain in place for some countries and those who aren't vaccinated.
[104] And, you know, it's still a long way from normal.
[105] Ian, thanks for the update.
[106] Thanks for having me. That's Daily Wires, Ian Hauerth.
[107] The Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday on New York State's concealed weapons law that could have implications for tens of millions of Americans.
[108] Here to discuss the cases, Amy Swearer, legal fellow for the Heritage Foundation.
[109] Amy, thanks for joining us today.
[110] Thank you so much for having me. So first, who are the plaintiffs in defendants in this case?
[111] Sure.
[112] So the plaintiffs in this case, I guess the petitioners are two New York residents who both have extensive experience in training with firearms, and they both applied for concealed carry permits in New York, and were denied those carry permits because licensing officials, in that state have some discretion, essentially, to issue or not issue those permits.
[113] And they determined that these petitioners did not face any sort of special or unique danger to their lives to justify granting them this permit.
[114] And so then on the flip side, you have the state of New York defending what is known as a good cause or may issue framework for concealed carry permits.
[115] So those are sort of your two parties here.
[116] Can you unpack those terms for us, the good cause and may issue concepts?
[117] Sure.
[118] So, New York is one of seven states, just a minority of states, that don't necessarily consider residents to have a right to bail arms in public.
[119] They have a framework for issuing can till carry permits known as a may issue framework, which means it's really up to the discretion of, whoever the licensing official is, they may issue at their discretion that permit to whoever they want or whoever they don't want for whatever reasons they choose.
[120] And then on top of that, New York has this additional standard known as a good cause requirement where they require applicants to prove to the government that they have some good cause, some special reason above and beyond a general fear of crime to be granted this privilege of defending themselves in public with firearms.
[121] And the petitioners here are arguing that they should have been granted this right and were denied it by the state.
[122] Right, that they look at the Second Amendment and they say that clear text says that there is a right not just to keep but to bear arms.
[123] They're sitting there looking at the Second Amendment and saying, hey, we have this right.
[124] New York says, no, you don't.
[125] And we would like the Supreme Court to flush this out and decide whether the text means what it says.
[126] And how do the court seem to respond?
[127] Were there any signals given, particularly with the conservative majority?
[128] Well, I think the oral arguments really showed and highlighted some of the serious problems that New York has.
[129] I think New York is facing an uphill legal battle.
[130] You know, you never want to play the guessing game of what will the court do.
[131] But I think it's very, very likely that you have probably six, possibly seven justices who at the end of the day, strike down New York.
[132] York's law, and essentially affirm that there is, in fact, an individual right to bear arms in public, and that a state can't so heavily regulate that, that your average ordinary law -abiding citizen essentially no longer has that right.
[133] Right.
[134] So this is a major case in that context.
[135] I mean, this could set a significant precedent moving forward.
[136] Absolutely.
[137] Not only is it the first significant Second Amendment case the court has taken up in well over a decade at this point.
[138] But it's touching on an area of the Second Amendment that thus far the court has not seriously brought up.
[139] This is the first time they have confronted this issue of whether or not there is in fact an individual right to bear arms in public for self -defense.
[140] Keep in mind, we're talking about tens of millions of Americans who live in these seven states where that right is so heavily restricted, so essentially not exist.
[141] So it's meaningful, not just from a legal standpoint, but also for specifically those individual Americans who would like to defend themselves in public but can't because they live in these seven states.
[142] Well, Amy, thanks so much for joining us.
[143] Thank you.
[144] That was Heritage Foundation Legal Fellow Amy Swearer.
[145] Another story we're tracking this week.
[146] On Thursday, federal agents arrested Igor Danchenko, a Russian national residing in Virginia, believed to be the primary subsource associated with the anti -Trump steel dossier at the center of the Russia collusion investigation.
[147] Special prosecutor John Durham is charging Danchenko with five counts of making false statements to the FBI.
[148] If you like this episode and are interested in hearing more, subscribe to Morningwire on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you're listening, and give us a five -star review.
[149] That's all the time we've got this morning.
[150] Thanks for waking up with us.
[151] We'll be back tomorrow with the news you need to know.
[152] If you like this podcast, get the Morning Wire newsletter delivered straight to your inbox when you join at Dailywire .com slash subscribe.
[153] Use code MorningWire to try a Reader's Pass membership and get your first month for only 99 cents.