Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21a240_d18e.pdf
Page Number: 5

Cite as:  595 U. S. ____ (2022) 

5 

Per Curiam 

Congress has authorized the Secretary to impose condi-
tions  on  the  receipt  of  Medicaid  and  Medicare  funds  that
“the Secretary finds necessary in the interest of the health 
and safety  of individuals who are furnished services.”   42 
U. S. C.  §1395x(e)(9).*    COVID–19  is  a  highly  contagious,
dangerous, and—especially for Medicare and Medicaid pa-
tients—deadly  disease.    The  Secretary  of  Health  and  Hu-
man  Services  determined  that  a  COVID–19  vaccine  man-
date  will  substantially  reduce 
that 
healthcare workers will contract the virus and transmit it 
to  their  patients.  86  Fed.  Reg.  61557–61558.    He  accord-
ingly concluded that a vaccine mandate is “necessary to pro-
mote and protect patient health and safety” in the face of 
the ongoing pandemic.  Id., at 61613. 

likelihood 

the 

The rule thus fits neatly within the language of the stat-
ute.  After all, ensuring that providers take steps to avoid 
transmitting  a  dangerous  virus  to  their  patients  is  con-
sistent with the fundamental principle of the medical pro-
fession: first, do no harm.  It would be the “very opposite of 
efficient  and  effective  administration  for  a  facility  that  is 
supposed  to  make  people  well  to  make  them  sick  with 
COVID–19.”  Florida v. Department of Health and Human 
Servs., 19 F. 4th 1271, 1288 (CA11 2021). 

The States and JUSTICE THOMAS offer a narrower view of 

—————— 

*While this provision pertains only to hospitals, the Secretary has sim-
ilar statutory powers with respect to most other categories of healthcare 
facilities covered by the interim rule.  See supra, at 2.  JUSTICE THOMAS 
points out that for five such kinds of facilities, the relevant statute does
not contain express “health and safety” language.  Post, at 3 (dissenting 
opinion).  But employees at these facilities—which include end-stage re-
nal disease clinics and home infusion therapy suppliers—represent less 
than 3% of the workers covered by the rule.  See Tr. of Oral Arg. 25.  And 
even with respect to them, the pertinent statutory language may be read 
as  incorporating  the  “health  and  safety”  authorities  applicable  to  the
other 97%.  See, e.g., 42 U. S. C. §1396d(d)(1).  We see no reason to let 
the infusion-clinic tail wag the hospital dog, especially because the rule
has an express severability provision.  86 Fed. Reg. 61560.