SCOTUS’ question: Should I stay or should I go… against the Constitution

Leah Wilson: Hi, I’m Leah Wilson, the Executive Director of Stand for Health Freedom. We exist to educate you on issues surrounding health freedom, and then empower you to educate your peers and your policy makers on the same by getting the tools in your hands and arming you with the people’s message.

One of the single biggest issues facing our nation and the globe today is forced vaccination, federal mandates, government mandates, to take the COVID-19 vaccine.

And today, on January 7, 2022, the Supreme Court of the United States heard oral arguments on the federal vaccine mandates. So everyone is asking, “What does this mean for me? Does the federal government have authority to issue the mandate, to enforce these mandates?”

And tonight, we have the pleasure of speaking with Attorney Greg Glaser. He is an expert on these very issues, and he’s going to tell us what we need to know about the Supreme Court’s involvement in these issues and how they currently affect you and your family.

So thank you so much, Greg, for joining us tonight.

Greg Glaser: I’m so happy to be here to speak about this very important development before the Supreme Court.

Leah Wilson: Attorney Glaser is a vaccine rights litigator. He graduated from UCLA in the University of San Francisco. As a lawyer, he is committed to protecting the fundamental right of informed consent.

He also knows these issues front and back because he has litigation himself pending in front of courts on these very issues. So he monitors them very closely, live time, and he also, which we’ll get to hear a little bit about, filed a brief in the cases that were in front of the Supreme Court today to submit an argument that he thought was important for the court’s consideration when making these decisions.

[02:00]

So let’s kick off and just dive right in to what people need to know to understand these issues. What are the three government mandates that are being considered right now?

Greg Glaser: Sure. There are three requirements—three vaccine requirements set by the federal government. One is OSHA, two is Medicare hospital healthcare workers, and the third is federal contractors. I’ll explain each one of those.

So the first one I mentioned is OSHA. So OSHA regulates workplaces. OSHA passed what was called an Emergency Temporary Standard, also called the vaccine mandate. And this requirement was that all workers who work at a company where there is more than a hundred employees had to get vaccinated by January 10th, which is in three days. Or alternatively, they don’t get vaccinated, then they have to get tested every week and wear a mask all of the time at work.

And so this was challenged in the lower courts. It went up on appeal, and the fifth circuit said, “We agree that this rule exceeds OSHA’s authority.” Meaning, there can be no vaccine mandate. So the fifth circuit issued a good opinion that said, “There can be no vaccine mandate.” This is because OSHA is doing something that’s never been done in the history of the country—they have just taken the small, narrow statute that gives them power to regular workforces and applied it across the board, in every industry, and it would completely upset the economy.

[03:43]

For the reason that if it was enforced, all the people who don’t want the vaccine, who clearly are not going to get the vaccine, hands down, no way, full stop, not getting it, then they’d walk off the job.

But what’s that going to do? It’s going to cause chaos in the economy.

And so that’s the issue in the OSHA case.

So anyway, that happened in the fifth circuit, which is a very important appellate court in the nation. There are several.

And then the next circuit over, which is go over a few states, said the opposite. They said, “No. We actually like this vaccine mandate. This is the way out of the pandemic.”

And so you have what’s called the circuit split—when two circuits have different opinions on the same issue. And so it went up to the United States Supreme Court to determine which circuit is right. And the Supreme Court did oral argument today. And wow, that was interesting.

So I’m going to talk a little bit about what the Supreme Court said, but before I get to that, let’s talk about the second mandate.

So the second mandate relates to Medicare/Medicaid. It’s a mandate on healthcare workers. And what that is, is basically the Department of Health and Human Services—the HHS, which is federal, they issued a rule that requires all healthcare workers at facilities that participate in Medicare—so that’s ten million healthcare workers across the country, that those healthcare workers be fully vaccinated unless they have a medical or a religious exemption.

[05:25]

And so several challenges followed—several court challenges followed to that, and district court judges, which is the bottom-level, very important, fundamental root trial court level—those judges in Missouri put it on hold, Louisiana put it on hold. And so the Biden Administration appealed that and again, went up on appeal and is now pending before the Supreme Court. So the Supreme Court heard oral argument on that as well.

And then the third mandate is called the federal contractor mandate. What that is, is basically a mandate that all federal contractors have to be vaccinated. But that’s not currently actually pending before the Supreme Court. Kentucky, Georgia and Florida, they’ve already enjoined the government from enforcing that mandate, but the Supreme Court hasn’t said whether they’re going to take that case or what the status is, so that’s tied up in the lower court.

So that’s three mandates that are currently being litigated.

Leah Wilson: And why is the third mandate not in front of the Supreme Court? Has no one filed and asked the Supreme Court to look at it? Or why is that one not being considered?

Greg Glaser: I don’t know the answer to that question. I just know that the injunctions were just weren’t heard today. I think that the outcome of the hearings today will determine what the Biden Administration does with that federal contractor mandate. [unintelligible 00:07:08].

[07:11]

I think what would happen is that out of these three mandates, were enough issues covered that the third would be decided by the first two.

Leah Wilson: That’s true. And those lower courts, the Court of Appeals, would have that precedent then. But what do—injunction. What should that mean to the person listening? Does that mean they don’t have to listen to the mandate, or that it’s not enforceable?

Greg Glaser: Yes, the good thing to know right now is that no one has to do anything. There’s no requirement. Everything is put on hold until this case gets decided. And it’s going to get decided either later today or over the weekend or Monday. And the reason why is because OSHA is giving employers until January 10 to—actually, OSHA says it will begin enforcement of its standard. And then penalties will begin on February 9th.

So one of the questions before the court today was, “How quick will the court act to let everyone know?” And by letting everyone know, it means just read the news, and you’ll see the answer to what the court is going to do.

And I can say why this is so important. Basically, the way that the procedural posture of these cases is, is that the court, the Supreme Court, has to decide who is likely to prevail. That’s the standard. It is, who has the likelihood of succeed, and is there going to be irreparable harm?

And so that is that first question—likelihood of success, that is going to change the nation overnight. That’s why these cases are so important.

[09:00]

If the Supreme Court says, this weekend for example, that the likelihood of succeed is with people who oppose the vaccination, well then, the Biden Administration knows it’s going to lose no matter what it does in the future with all these vaccine mandates.

So it doesn’t matter whether it’s the healthcare mandate or the employer mandate or the contractor mandate. It doesn’t matter which one it is. If the Biden Administration knows they don’t have a likelihood of success, and the lower courts will always respect the Supreme Court, then that means across the nation, it’s going to be that [good] failure for the vaccine mandates.

And so that is why these cases are so important and why everyone listening, all the lawyers listening, were just hanging on the words of these justices and saying, “Who’s going to vote which way?”

Leah Wilson: And what are they deciding exactly? Are they deciding whether or not the mandates are valid and enforceable, or what was the Supreme Court listening to today and deciding today?

Greg Glaser: The first and most important issue before the Supreme Court is OSHA’s authority, which is, does OSHA, which is a federal bureaucracy, do they have the power to tell every employer in the nation who employs more than a hundred people—that’s everyone. That’s a lumber yard. That’s a large restaurant chain. Everyone. It doesn’t matter what industry you do, whether you make textiles or whether you serve something or sell real estate. It doesn’t matter. To tell everybody across the industry that everybody is going to get vaccinated.

[10:38]

They’ve never done anything like that in the past. It’s massive. It’s like turning over the [Apple] card of the economy. That’s the idea.

But the government’s position is, “This will be wonderful. Everyone will get vaccinated. We’re so happy about that. A shot in every arm.”

That’s their view. They think they’re helping.

We’ve heard that before.

“I’m from the government. I’m here to help.”

But the Trade Associations, who are challenging this, they’re saying the opposite—that this is not going to help their businesses. In fact, they’re going to experience a massive walk-off, off the job, people not showing up, it’s going to cause chaos, there’s going to be supply shortages, there’s going to be inadequate maintenance of things because who walks off? It’s everybody. It’s the mechanics. It’s the service people. It’s everybody.

So that’s their point.

So the court has to decide, first, does OSHA have the authority to do this sweeping rule that they have never done before? And the government’s position is, “Of course, OSHA has the authority. It’s an emergency. COVID is going to kill us all. It’s currently killing millions of people.”

That’s their view.

Whereas the Trade Association said, “We understand that COVID is a serious issue. However, OSHA has not considered the alternatives to a one size fits all mandate.”

[12:11]

And OSHA has time to go through the whole process of commenting and rule-making and all this stuff. And further, that this should be an issue decided at the state level, so that we’re not treading on the rights of states to regulate their own [conduct].

So basically, it’s like watching two giant goliaths fight over who gets to hold the needle. Meanwhile, there are some organizations that are like, “You know, maybe no one has the right to inject us.”

So that’s where I come in with the brief that I filed in the OSHA case.

Leah Wilson: So that means if the court is deciding whether or not OSHA has the authority to issue this mandate, let’s say the court decides, “No, OSHA does not have the authority,” is the mandate over? Is the case over? Or is there something else that has to happen?

Greg Glaser: Great question. If the court decides that OSHA does not have the authority, then that would be [punting] the issue because then nobody knows what to do. Then the issue of mandatory vaccination is not really decided. It’s just kicked down the road to another time because that’s what people care about. The people who are not getting vaccinated, are they not getting vaccinated because they think OSHA doesn’t have the power to do this? No, of course not. They’re not getting vaccinated because vaccines are dangerous and are going to harm them.

[13:47]

That’s the issue. That’s what everyone is talking about at the dinner table.

And so if the court rules that OSHA does not have the power, then it punts the issue to the next case, whenever that’s going to be decided in the future.

So the arguments that the court relies upon are going to be really important.

That’s why when I was listening to the hearing today, this morning, I was so interested to hear, in particular, Justice Thomas and Justice Alito, who are strong, conservative voices—voices of reason on the court, and they were talking about alternatives to vaccination. These justices stepped out of their seats, basically, and took the reins and said, “You know, there’s more than one way to address infectious disease. Vaccination is not the only answer here. Did OSHA consider that?”

And meanwhile, the lawyers litigating the case were just taking the position that, “Well, everyone recognizes that the vaccination is the best way to handle this. However, yadda, yadda.”

And so it was great to hear Justice Alito and Justice Thomas stand up for the points that our movement has been raising, our health freedom moment has been raising that vaccines are dangerous and there are remedies to deal with COVID.

Leah Wilson: That protecting against transmissible disease is not one size fits all, and that people pursue health in different ways. There could be dozens of different reasons why someone would be hesitant or resolute in not accepting the vaccine. And it being dangerous is one of those. It being unnecessary is another. Not trusting the company that is manufacturing it is another.

[15:42]

There are so many different reasons why people might choose something different and understanding that one size fits all has never been a part of the fabric of our nation until it came to the vaccine program.

And now, the world is confronting what that means for me and for you as we pursue a living and a spot in our communities.

So what is the second decision that was being made with the CMS decision? Were they deciding whether or not…?

Greg Glaser: The CMS, it’s basically the same case but flipped because it’s actually the government who is appealing the lower court denial in the CMS case.

Leah Wilson: So the lower courts said, “No, we cannot do this mandate.” And now the government is saying, “Supreme Court, please tell them that we can do the mandate.”

Greg Glaser: Correct. And so for the court, for the Supreme Court today, to hear both cases on the same day, it levels the playing field on both, so that they’re coming with [parities], clever whoever thought of that, to do that. And it emphasizes the court’s neutrality on the issue, and that they’re just going to try to make a decision that’s in the best interest of the country.

And you get a sense already that the people are very critical of the liberal justices on the court who are citing scientific facts that were inaccurate about the number of people who have been hospitalized and the death totals. Just citing stuff that’s already been discredited.

[17:18]

So you get a glimpse that the conservative justices are representing good science and sound reason and the liberal justices are repeating discredited soundbites from the mainstream media from a while ago.

And so that’s pretty concerning as to where the court is getting their information from. And so the hope is that this will get corrected somehow, that they’re getting corrected.

That’s one of criticisms as well of the litigators who are litigating the case today, is why didn’t they interject when they were hearing Justice Sotomayor state facts that were not correct? Why didn’t they say, “Your Honor, these facts would need to be corrected [unintelligible 00:18:03] opinion and that’s not the information that should be represented.”

Leah Wilson: Yes, we did hear the attorneys for the people, so the ones that are saying, “We should not have the mandate,” a couple of times admit to things or concede to things that aren’t true. And I wonder if that is their current understanding of the facts or if it’s just the intensity of the oral arguments, and it will ultimately be corrected.

But the whole notion that the vaccine is the way to stop transmission when we’ve heard CDC Director Walensky say it will not stop transmission. So if the agency that they’re relying upon for direction with the administration of the vaccination is saying something different than the Supreme Court Justice, that begs a really big question.

[18:54]

Greg Glaser: Right. And it also emphasizes one of the problems with these emergency hearings, which is that have these issues been fully briefed? And have the judges had time to address these issues?

Now, [unintelligible 00:19:15] judges especially are generalists. They may not be the best informed on these issues. And so we don’t want to criticize the judges for not knowing things that a generalist wouldn’t be expected to know. However, if the judge is going to step out of the bounds and start analyzing an issue that was not briefed, then that does raise some red flags, and I think that’s part of the problem.

I read several of the amicus briefs that were submitted to the Supreme Court. I also submitted one on behalf of America’s Frontline Doctors. And I would say that the vaccine risk is not currently briefed on this case.

Leah Wilson: That was very obvious when they compared it to the wearing of gloves, when they said, “We tell people they have to wear gloves, then we can tell people they have to get the shot.” And that was very revealing that that’s the seriousness of the decision that they believe that they’re making.

Greg Glaser: Yes. That’s a good point.

Leah Wilson:  So you submitted a brief.

Greg Glaser: Yes, and the brief was focused. It was focused on two things. Number one, that these so-called vaccines are unprecedented. They are gene therapy. And that because they are treatment—they’re a form of medical treatment rather than something that actually creates immunity in the person, that they should be analyzed under the United States Supreme Court Standard of Cruzan rather than the Supreme Court Standard of Jacobson.

[20:47]

Jacobson is about the local’s authority to mandate vaccination whereas Cruzan is about the individual’s right to decline a medical treatment.

So declining a medical treatment, as we argued in our brief, should trigger strict scrutiny, meaning, the court should strike down any attempt to infringe on the individual’s right. Whereas under Jacobson, they say, “That’s a vaccine. You’re in. Welcome. Please join the club of other vaccines which we inject into everyone because vaccine.”

That’s obviously been a systemic problem in American Law is this, just utter deference given to vaccination. And we saw that showcased today, as the lawyers and the judges just categorically did not want to challenge vaccine safety. Even the excellent Justice Alito made it very clear that he was not challenging vaccination and he wanted to make it clear on the record. He said it multiple times, and he didn’t want his comments to be misinterpreted.

And so these justices, they’re very conservative individuals, and they want to respect the bounds of their office and not get into questions reserved to other departments, such as the executive and, obviously, the legislative.

So with that said, they are not going to get in deep on the science. They just want to recognize where things are and [rule] on the law. And that’s why I think they were probably drawn to these cases because they can get really into the weeds on who has the authority, was this the proper procedure—just legal questions rather than factual ones.

[22:31]

Leah Wilson: And arguably, it is a matter of authority. But like you’re saying, when every attorney today and most justices that spoke, at one point in time, all used the phrase, “This is for the protection of the unvaccinated.” And that’s why you’re saying that this should be scrutinized under Cruzan because it’s not a public benefit that we’re pushing these mandates forward, or that the government is pushing these mandates forward. It’s an individual benefit. It’s a medical benefit to the individual recipient and that was made very clear.

There was no apology that this isn’t a public benefit. It’s an individual benefit to protect the unvaccinated from their own decision.

So it’s really interesting to hear that said but then to continue to talk about how we should have the ability to tell them to put on their gloves.

So tell us what this means if, for example, the U.S. Court of Appeals has dealt with a lot of these decisions, and then only treated one or two states, and then left other states exposed. And then we’ve had other decisions that treat the whole country instead of just a few states. But here at the Supreme Court, we know it will apply to everyone.

So let’s say that the federal government mandates stand, we get an issue from the Supreme Court, order from the Supreme Court that say the mandates are good. Then what about states like Montana and Florida? Which law is going to be followed—the protective Montana law that says you can’t discriminate based on vaccine status, or the federal mandate that says you must require your employees to be vaccinated?

[24:20]

Greg Glaser: Yes. It sure would be nice to know that answer, but unfortunately, we won’t know until it gets actually litigated.

So if the Supreme Court denies this request for a stay, meaning, a request to stop the mandates, then they will be saying, “We’re going to let the lower courts decide,” in which case you just get more circuit splits. It goes back to the sixth circuit. It goes back to Florida. And each court will make their own decisions, and it goes right back up again.

Leah Wilson: So it’s possible that different states could have different rulings, or different districts could have different rulings. So you could be more protected in one part of the country than another?

Greg Glaser: Exactly. That’s exactly right. And one of the points made by the lawyers challenging the OSHA standard was that already, employers have this ability to mandate vaccination. They don’t need OSHA to tell them to mandate it. If Microsoft Corporation wants to mandate vaccination, that’s their prerogative to do so.

So one thing that people can proactively do is get a religious exemption or, maybe even better yet, stop working for companies like Microsoft.

Leah Wilson: The non-compliance has been powerful, and we’ve seen it in state after state, city after city, organization after organization, that if there is a group willing to not comply, that we’ve seen shifts happen.

[25:57]

We just saw in a nursing home here an hour north of me that ten people walked out and held a little rally. And then their jobs were all reinstated after that rally. Those ten people all got their jobs back.

Non-compliance can be a powerful thing, and I’m thankful for states, such as Montana, Texas and Florida that are choosing to pave the way, despite the unknown like you’re talking about. There’s no guarantee that the state police powers will be the ones that are ultimately respected, but they are claiming their state police powers and not cowering or backing down to the federal overreach.

So what do you say to a lawmaker within a state—with a state legislator that says, “Well, we don’t have the authority to legislate on this because the EEOC already done,” or, “Because the federal government is already issuing mandates.”

Greg Glaser: The answer is that the state is allowed to take more protective measures. But unfortunately, they interpret more protective measures as vaccination, masks, tests. They don’t currently interpret it in favor of natural immunity, Ivermectin, breathing.

So that’s the first thing, is just the issue with local powers and the way that they interpret these rules. But I think we’re going to discontinue seeing these showdowns between state powers and federal powers, including the exceptions. Now, there are some exceptions in the OSHA rule, for example, for businesses that would naturally not benefit from this policy—if they had some more protective procedures. So that might get litigated.

[28:02]

Yes, I think this is going to be one of those things that we will have to see after the ruling how it plays out.

Leah Wilson: Right. And the way that the OSHA rule is written, the ETS, it says, I believe, that the business would have to apply for that exception, which then gives the federal government the ultimate say over whether or not you actually do fit within the definition of the exception, and what you can do with your own business. That’s the interesting part of that also.

So let’s take the opposite approach. Let’s say the Supreme Court issues an order tonight, and they ultimately strike down the government mandates. Are we all then scot-free, safe from forced vaccination in our workplaces, cities and towns?

Greg Glaser: The answer is yes from federal mandates, probably for the rest of the year, because the Supreme Court would be saying that Congress has to act. And so that’s the question then. It’s, will Congress be able to get a majority to pass a mandate? And even that will get challenged as well.

So yes, people would be safe from federal mandates. So then the threats would be state mandates, states like California. Governor Newsom is clearly in favor of vaccine mandates, as well as private employers like Microsoft, hands down, they’re going to mandate.

So the effective remedy then shifts to exactly what you highlighted, Leah, which is the grassroots—people doing the walking off the job. It’s the most effective way to get the employer’s attention. The employers are concerned about the bottom-line. They don’t want their employees walking off the job. It disrupts their entire operations.

[30:01]

And so that’s really what this is all about. So this is really the Trade Association’s interest. I never got the sense that they really care about the health of employees at all. They’re just about, “Are employees going to come to work? Is this going to affect our…?”

You read their briefs, for example. They’re talking about the trillion-dollar annual that they contribute to the economy, and that’s their concern. That’s their standing. That’s what their brief was centered around. That’s why they made the concession that vaccines are the best way out of the pandemic in their view. And yet here they are, arguing against mandatory vaccination because for them, it’s the bottom-line.

And we’ve seen this. We’ve seen this in California, for example. We saw it recently with the schools. There were lawsuits against LA Unified School District, and it was not the lawsuits that changed LA Unified. What it was, was the parents said, “We’re going to take our children out of school,” which would cost LA Unified tens of millions of dollars instantly. They would lose tens of millions.

And so LA Unified, they crunched the numbers, and they said, “You know what? No mandate.”

It’s bottom-line.

And so that’s important to remember is that even though we are submitting these issues to the United States Supreme Court and asking them to exercise their power, we must always remember we, the people, have the power.

[31:35]

Leah Wilson: Yes, and it is our actions and our voices that are the most powerful tools we have to shape our communities and to shape the culture because—Attorney Glaser and I were talking about before we hopped on here is when you hear the dramatic gap in understanding with some of these justices, and what the vaccine decision means to you or to someone that might be close to you, you recognize that the cultural shift is huge, that people understanding and having informed consent, and censorship being squashed, so that everyone can have full information before they make this decision is key and it might get in the way of justice the amount of censorship, the suppression of informed consent can stop justice from being realized when we don’t recognize the sacredness or the heaviness of the decisions that are being made.

So we still pray that great decisions are made based on authority like we’re talking about—just simply by looking at the economy and authority that has been delegated. Hopefully, we get some good decisions, but your voice is powerful and your actions are even more powerful as it relates to showing people that they’re not alone, and that there are many Americans stepping forward in freedom and in believing that we will protect what is ours and what is our children and grandchildren’s.

Greg Glaser: Thank you.

Leah Wilson: You’re welcome.

Greg Glaser: I’d also like to share something that’s quite candid about the process of drafting a brief to the Supreme Court, which is, it’s very difficult for a lawyer who knows as much as I do about vaccines. I know what’s in these vaccines. I know how much harm they are causing. There are so much that I want to say in my brief to the U.S. Supreme Court.

[33:27]

But just like we know with being a dad or a mom, there are certain things that you tell your child and there are certain things that you wait to tell them later on. You know that there’s a time to bring something up. And it is a matter of exercising discretion.

And so I did that with my brief to the Supreme Court. Although I wanted to talk about all of the harm that vaccines do, I exercised the discretion to keep the brief focused on strict scrutiny and that these are medical treatments that need to be analyzed under Cruzan.

And my thinking is that by doing so, I will have reached one of the justices who will be able to add that information to a concurring opinion.

For example, it might be that Justice Thomas writes a concurring opinion where he cites other remedies, such as Ivermectin or HCQ, where he talks about how these are genetic therapies and maybe not to be analyzed as vaccines.

I think that will be very helpful to get.

And so sometimes, as lawyers, what we do is we will reach out and get the information across that we know will be received rather than everything that we want to say because at the end of the day, we represent clients and we have to represent those clients faithfully and diligently. And that means not saying everything we want to say just because it makes us feel good. This is about achieving the larger win for the health freedom community.

[34:59]

And so I hope that I achieved that here.

Leah Wilson: I absolutely appreciate that. And we share that value, Greg, because here at Stand for Health Freedom, we endeavor our policy analyst, our legislative strategist. We always endeavor to work in a way that is effective and that can move things forward, and that can actually be received within our current cultural climate, but with the understanding that we have.

So we would never use a strategy that would seed something bad or seed something that we couldn’t stand for in ten years.

So the integrity of your brief was beautiful because although it stuck to the technicalities of strict scrutiny and where we are at with these mandates, there was nothing in there that gave credence to vaccination, or there was nothing in there that—

Greg Glaser: I was very careful with that. Thank you.

Leah Wilson: —right, that would support the notion that we should readily embrace what is happening.

So that integrity is important and it really showed through. And we share that because we endeavor in our legislative strategies to always keep in mind that even if we’re inching toward a win, that we keep our arguments integrous in something that we can continue to stand behind.

Greg Glaser: Absolutely.

Leah Wilson: So what do we do that—

Greg Glaser: Stand for Health Freedom is doing excellent on that level. Also, I think there’s the logic that you put into this work, and also, there’s an energy as well that just resonates. And it’s going to create the kind of [sidle] change that I really want to be a part of. So thank you. Keep up the good work.

[36:33]

Leah Wilson: I appreciate that. So if you have final words, what do we do now? What do we do now as we watch this unfold? I love that you said earlier, no one has to do anything as of right now with the mandate.

Greg Glaser: Yes, don’t do anything. No need. No need to do anything. I’ll tell you what I’m going to do, and I think you might want to join this, which is, get ready to celebrate on Monday. I think that the conservative justices are going to come through for us. And by us, I mean the American people. They’re going to come through and say, “OSHA overstepped their bounds and further, this is a highly contentious issue, and here are the reasons why.”

I think there’s going to be a great concurring opinion by Justices Alito and Thomas that highlights some of these key points. And this will be round 1, and I think we’re going to get the win.

Leah Wilson: It’s so good. And for those of you listening, I know that if you hold health freedom sacred like we do, we want you to know that it’s important to keep educating within your own local communities and within your states because those strong state policies will provide protection from business mandates. Even if we get great rulings on the federal government mandates, there is still a cultural war brewing that either says we should tell our employees what to do with their bodies, with their own physical bodies, or we should not. And we want you to have the confidence to go to your representatives and your senators and your own state houses and say, “We want our state to lead the way in health freedom.”

[38:02]

So if you could, text the number, 50457 with the word, “STAND.” So that’s 50457 with the word, “STAND.” You can send that first message to your representatives and senators, asking them to put into place a protected class for vaccine status in your state.

So thank you so much, Greg, for joining us tonight. And I look forward to watching how this unfolds with you and continuing to support your work. I appreciate you.

Greg Glaser: Likewise. Thank you. Bye.