nam 22 uu 4500 10.17176/20220119-184227-0 DE-Verfassungsblog cr||||| 220119s2022||||xx#|||||o|||| ||| 0|eng|| 10.17176/20220119-184227-0 doi eng 342 23 Driesen, David M. Author aut The Death of Law and Equity A Comment on Two COVID Cases Driesen, David M. Verfassungsblog 2022-01-19 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier On the same day, the U.S. Supreme Court issued decisions governing requests for emergency stays of two rules protecting Americans from COVID 19. Both rules relied on very similar statutory language, which clearly authorized protection from threats to health. Both of them presented strikingly bad cases for emergency stays. Yet, the Court granted an emergency stay in one of these cases and denied it in the other. These decisions suggest that the Court applies judicial discretion unguided by law or traditional equitable considerations governing treatment of politically controversial regulatory cases. funded by the government CC BY-SA 4.0 COVID 19 health protection major questions doctrine US Supreme Court Max Steinbeis Verfassungsblog gGmbH Verfassungsblog 2366-7044 https://staging.verfassungsblog.de/the-death-of-law-and-equity/ raw object