Despite a waning COVID-19 infection rate and widely available vaccine doses, airline passengers are required to wear a mask before boarding their planes per recommendations by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
One frequent traveler objected to the mandate and responded with a complaint that rose all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court level — but Justice Clarence Thomas revealed that the court will not be hearing the case.
“Of course it’s still disappointing”
According to the Washington Examiner, Thomas made the announcement on Tuesday evening, thus rejecting a request for a temporary injunction in the case.
Lucas Wall first brought his court challenge before Florida’s Middle District after he was removed from an Orlando airport for refusing to wear a maks.
The D.C. native has yet to have his case heard, which is why he said he pursued the “long shot” approach of petitioning the nation’s highest court.
“Of course it’s still disappointing Justice Thomas did not take a more in-depth look at the illegal and unconstitutional mask requirement,” he said.
Wall went on to determine that “the federal government has prevailed in muzzling all travelers and banning tens of millions of Americans … who can’t tolerate having their face covered from using any form of public transportation.”
“I’m not going to be able to travel”
For his part, he blames an anxiety disorder for his inability to wear a mask.
“I will not wear a mask,” he asserted in a statement last month. “I cannot wear a mask because of my breathing difficulties. I’m not going to be able to travel or be in airports for hours at a time just sitting around and wearing a mask that restricts my breathing so much and makes me uncomfortable.”
The plaintiff’s court filing further claimed that wearing a mask is not proven to be effective at mitigating the spread of the virus, citing “countless scientific and medical data showing that face masks are totally ineffective in reducing coronavirus spread.”
Wall concluded that the CDC’s mask rules for air travelers are “illegal” and represent “unconstitutional exercises of executive authority.”
He attempted to appeal to the justices who previously sided with plaintiffs arguing that their religious liberties had been curtailed by COVID-19 restrictions, calling on the court “to also hold that other constitutional rights — including the freedom to travel, to due process, and states’ rights under the 10th Amendment — can’t be suspended” in the name of public health policy.