--:-- [Upbeat music fades out]
--:-- John Bickley: This episode is brought to you by LifeLock. When you visit the doctor, you probably hand over your insurance, your ID, and contact details. It's just one of the many places that has your personal info. And if any of them accidentally expose it, you could be at risk for identity theft. LifeLock monitors millions of data points a second. If you become a victim, they'll fix it, guaranteed, or your money back. Save up to 40% your first year at LifeLock.com slash podcast. Terms apply.
--:-- [Music transitions to a news theme]
--:-- John Bickley: 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. But some are pushing back. We'll look at the new OSHA mandate and the arguments in a new lawsuit against the Biden administration filed by The Daily Wire. I'm John Bickley with Georgia Howe. It's Friday, November 5th, and this is Morning Wire.
--:-- Georgia Howe: 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. We'll break down the legal arguments for both sides and what a decision could mean for millions of Americans.
--:-- John Bickley: And after more than 500 days, Australia has opened its international borders. Sort of. Who is eligible to enter the country and how does this move reflect Australia's changing approach to COVID-19?
--:-- Georgia Howe: Thanks for waking up with Morning Wire. Stay tuned. We have the news you need to know. This show is sponsored by CrowdHealth. You deserve healthcare freedom. Introducing CrowdHealth, a community of people who care about health, healthcare freedom, and each other. 100% of your monthly contribution pays for actual healthcare costs. No enrollment periods, limiting doctor networks, or messy contracts. Just go to joincrowdhealth.com and enter code DAILYWIRE for a special offer. CrowdHealth is not health insurance. It's a community-powered alternative. Terms and conditions may apply.
--:-- John Bickley: On Thursday, the federal government revealed a much-anticipated and controversial OSHA rule requiring large companies to enforce COVID-19 vaccinations for employees. Almost immediately, companies, including the Daily Wire, shot back with legal challenges. 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 Herr.
--:-- Josh Herr: Thanks for jumping in our recording booth today. I'm excited to be here.
--:-- John Bickley: So first off, tell us about this OSHA rule that was just released Thursday.
--:-- Josh Herr: So this order is basically a vaccination mandate for private businesses with more than 100 employees. 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. If they refuse, they either have to be tested weekly and wear a mask at all times or they'll be fired.
--:-- John Bickley: President Biden's description of the policy is that, quote, this is not about freedom or personal choice. And they gave this rule some serious teeth. If a company fails to enforce this vaccine mandate, it's subject to fines of over $13,000 per occurrence. But if OSHA deems a business to be a, quote, egregious or repeat violator, it can fine a company up to $136,000 for each employee who does not comply over and over again per occurrence.
--:-- Josh Herr: That's right. That's stunning. One of the other surprising things about this rule is that it being promulgated in the form of an emergency temporary standard or ETS This is the procedure OSHA uses when it claims the danger to employees is quote grave and there no time for ordinary rulemaking In this case, OSHA bypassed the ordinary period for public comment, claiming that this was an emergency. 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. And the administration is using all of that time to consult privately with labor unions and not the public.
--:-- John Bickley: Meanwhile, some companies, including our own, are pushing back. So tell us a bit about Daily Wire's lawsuit. What's your main argument?
--:-- Josh Herr: Yeah, we're filing a motion to stay enforcement of the ETS with the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which makes several arguments. 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. Second, we're arguing that even if the federal government did have that power, Congress never delegated that power to OSHA. So a rule of this nature would be in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, making it unconstitutional.
--:-- Georgia Howe: 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. And then finally, there is the pragmatic business argument, which is that this mandate is frankly an HR nightmare. It exposes businesses to liability to their employees. It forces our company, for example, to require our employees to divulge to us personal health information and potentially identify their religious affiliation. And that opens the door to liability under privacy laws, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Civil Rights Act, and other laws.
--:-- John Bickley: Yeah, I could see a lot of complications there. So how confident are you in this case?
--:-- Josh Herr: Well, we've made it pretty clear that we will not comply with this mandate. So you could say we're pretty confident. But the Dillon Law Group and Alliance Defending Freedom are both representing us in this case, and there's no one I would trust more with this.
--:-- John Bickley: All right, well, we're obviously very interested to see where this goes. Thanks for taking the time to explain that all to us.
--:-- Josh Herr: No problem.
--:-- Georgia Howe: That was Josh Herr, General Counsel for The Daily Wire. You can get this show and all of the content you love wherever you are, all on The Daily Wire app. 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. Download the Daily Wire app and keep up with the facts, no matter where your day takes you.
--:-- John Bickley: 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. Here to tell us more is Daily Wire's Ian Howarth.
--:-- Ian Howarth: So Ian, what's the latest from Australia?
--:-- Ian Howarth: While Australian politicians are celebrating that the country's borders are finally open, at least to some extent. Good evening, the arrivals hall at Sydney Airport. Welcome back. The sound of tears and laughter today as our international border reopened. Fully vaccinated people are now able to travel from New Zealand if they test negative for COVID-19 before leaving, and they won't need to quarantine in certain states. The next set of foreign visitors who can visit Australia will be those coming from Singapore after November 21st And Australian airline Qantas resumed its national operations with flights between Sydney London and Los Angeles So tourism is opening up again and I also assume we going to see more repatriation 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. And by closing the border, I mean no one in or out. And this includes Australian citizens, at least without quarantine and waiting lists. 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.
--:-- Georgia Howe: One of the obvious results of the strict lockdown policy has meant vast numbers of family separations. 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 a week ago. 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. Thousands of Australians were basically stranded abroad because of fewer flights and weekly limits on how many people were able to come in.
--:-- Ian Howarth: Right. I mean, a lot of countries had travel bans. So how did Australia's restrictions compare to those other travel bans? Well, it's vaguely similar. For example, the travel ban on visitors to the US, put in place by Donald Trump and extended by President Joe Biden, is being lifted this month, but again for vaccinated travellers only. The restrictions are also going to be removed on a country-by-country basis. What really sets Australia apart from most countries, including the US, 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. 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. And this looks likely to continue as travel restrictions remain in place for some countries and those who aren't vaccinated. And, you know, it's still a long way from normal.
--:-- John Bickley: Ian, thanks for the update.
--:-- Ian Howarth: Thanks for having me.
--:-- Georgia Howe: That's Daily Wire's Ian Howarth.
--:-- John Bickley: The Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday on New York State's concealed weapons law that could have implications for tens of millions of Americans. Here to discuss the case is Amy Swearer, legal fellow for the Heritage Foundation.
--:-- Amy Swearer: Thanks for joining us today.
--:-- John Bickley: So first, who are the plaintiffs and defendants in this case?
--:-- Amy Swearer: Sure. 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 set of discretion, essentially, to issue or not issue those permits. 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. 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.
--:-- Georgia Howe: Can you unpack those terms for us, the good cause and may issue concepts?
--:-- Amy Swearer: Sure. So New York is one of seven states, just a minority of states, that don't necessarily consider residents to have a right to bear arms in public. They have a framework for issuing concealed carry permits known as a may issue framework which means it 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. 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.
--:-- John Bickley: Right. 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. They're sitting there looking at the Second Amendment saying, hey, we have this right. New York says, no, you don't. And we would like the Supreme Court to flesh this out and decide whether the text means what it says.
--:-- Amy Swearer: Well, I think the oral arguments really showed and highlighted some of the serious problems that New York has. I think New York is facing an uphill legal battle. You never want to play the guessing game of what will the court do, 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'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.
--:-- Georgia Howe: Right. So this is a major case in that context. I mean, this could set a significant precedent moving forward.
--:-- Amy Swearer: Absolutely. Not only is it the first significant Second Amendment case the court has taken up in well over a decade at this point, but it's touching on an area of the Second Amendment that thus far the court has not seriously brought up. 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. 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 as to essentially not exist.
--:-- John Bickley: Well, Amy, thanks so much for joining us.
--:-- Amy Swearer: Thank you.
--:-- Georgia Howe: That was Heritage Foundation legal fellow Amy Swearer.
--:-- John Bickley: Another story we're tracking this week. On Thursday, federal agents arrested Igor Danchenko, a Russian national residing in Virginia, believed to be the primary subsource associated with the anti-Trump steal dossier at the center of the Russia collusion investigation. Special Prosecutor John Durham is charging Danchenko with five counts of making false statements to the FBI.
--:-- Georgia Howe: If you liked this episode and are interested in hearing more, subscribe to Morning Wire on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you're listening, and give us a five-star review. That's all the time we've got this morning. Thanks for waking up with us. We'll be back tomorrow with the news you need to know.
