Not One—But Two—Lawyers Who Argued Against Covid Safety Rules Before Supreme Court... Had Covid

  • 📰 commondreams
  • ⏱ Reading Time:
  • 12 sec. here
  • 2 min. at publisher
  • 📊 Quality Score:
  • News: 8%
  • Publisher: 51%

Law Law Headlines News

Law Law Latest News,Law Law Headlines

'This irony illustrates a fundamental inequity that is so normalized it is essentially invisible: Powerful people can choose to work safely, while vulnerable workers must continue to risk their lives to make a living.'

, two of the attorneys arguing against the vaccination, testing, and mask-wearing rules spoke to the court remotely because they had tested positive for Covid-19 prior to the proceedings.

A number of court observers pointed out the irony, considering, as journalist Cristian Farias said, that Flowers' and Murrill's absences showed the effectiveness of strict workplace safety protocols during the pandemic.

 

Thank you for your comment. Your comment will be published after being reviewed.
Please try again later.
We have summarized this news so that you can read it quickly. If you are interested in the news, you can read the full text here. Read more:

 /  🏆 530. in LAW

Law Law Latest News, Law Law Headlines