Red Light – Green Light: CMS Vaccination Mandate is On Again in 26 States?

15 December 2021 Blog
Author(s): Taylor Appling Kara Sweet Lawrence W. Vernaglia
Published To: Labor & Employment Law Perspectives Health Care Law Today Coronavirus Resource Center:Back to Business

The CMS vaccine rule -- which applies to the staff of many Medicare- and Medicaid-certified providers such as hospitals, long-term care facilities, home-health agencies, and hospices (“covered entities”), and which has dominated news headlines in recent weeks (see our prior posts on it here and here) – is back in action, at least in some states.

After a federal court in Missouri halted the CMS Rule in 10 states (see Missouri v. Biden, — F. Supp. 3d —, 2021 WL 5564501 (E.D. Mo. Nov. 29, 2021), a federal court in Louisiana issued a nationwide injunction purporting to enjoin the CMS Rule for the rest of the country, though only 14 states had brought the lawsuit in which the injunction was entered (see Louisiana v. Becerra, No. 3:21-CV-03970, 2021 WL 5609846 (W.D. La. Nov. 30, 2021). The government sought review by the Federal Appeals Court to “stay” (or halt) the nationwide injunction.

Today, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion partially upholding and partially reversing the district court’s injunction.  See Louisiana v. Becerra, No. 21-30734, 2021 WL 5913302 (5th Cir. Dec. 15, 2021).  The Fifth Circuit noted that the government is likely to prevail on limiting the scope of the nationwide injunction, and as such, the appellate court “stayed” the injunction with respect to jurisdictions outside of the 14 states included in the lawsuit. In other words, although the CMS Rule is still halted in the 14 states that brought the lawsuit in Louisiana, and in the 10 states that are part of the Missouri lawsuit, for everywhere else, the injunction is lifted.

CMS Vaccination Mandate Still Enjoined

CMS Vaccination Mandate Back In Place




























 New Jersey


 New Mexico

 New Hampshire

 New York

 North Dakota

 North Carolina





 South Carolina

 Rhode Island

 South Dakota




 West Virginia








The major question on everyone’s mind is enforcement. On December 2, 2021, after the Missouri and Louisiana courts made their initial rulings, CMS released guidance to state surveyors instructing the surveyors that they must not survey providers for compliance with the CMS mandate requirements:

While CMS remains confident in its authority to protect the health and safety of patients in facilities certified by the Medicare and Medicaid programs, it has suspended activities related to the implementation and enforcement of this rule pending future developments in the litigation. Accordingly, while these preliminary injunctions are in effect, surveyors must not survey providers for compliance with the requirements of the Interim Final Rule.

Now that the vaccination mandate is back “on” in 26 states, we are all awaiting guidance from CMS on when enforcement in the non-enjoined states will start back up—if at all. This is of particular importance to covered entities, as the Phase 1 compliance deadline of December 6, 2021 has come and gone. Similarly, several covered entities have locations across state lines and may be forced to implement, and to comply with a hodgepodge of various federal, state, and local rules. Therefore, covered entities—in all states—should continue to be ready to put in place the policies and procedures necessary to comply with the CMS vaccination mandate. We have reached out to a Regional Office in a jurisdiction that covers both enjoined states and not-enjoined states, and as of December 16, 2021, there was no clear guidance as to the ongoing stay of survey activity.

After today’s ruling, one thing remains clear, as noted by the Fifth Circuit: “This vaccine rule is an issue of great significance currently being litigated throughout the country.”

Foley is here to help you address the short- and long-term impacts in the wake of regulatory changes. We have the resources to help you navigate these and other important legal considerations related to business operations and industry-specific issues. Please reach out to the authors, your Foley relationship partner, our Health Care Practice Group, our Labor & Employment Group with any questions.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services