The Daily Signal - Jay Sekulow Explains Vaccine Mandate Cases Before Supreme Court

Episode Date: January 10, 2022

Friday was a critical day for American liberty. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in two cases to determine whether or not a stay would be issued against President Joe Biden’s vaccine mandates.  The high court heard arguments on the Biden COVID-19 vaccine and testing mandate for businesses with 100 or more employees, and also on the mandate requiring health care workers to be vaccinated.  “The courts seem inclined to strike down the mandate, probably on the lack of authority ground, that OSHA, the agency, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, doesn't have the statutory authority to do what they did,” says Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice. The center filed a lawsuit on behalf of The Heritage Foundation in November challenging the 100-plus employees vaccine mandate. (The Daily Signal is the news outlet of The Heritage Foundation.) Sekulow joins “The Daily Signal Podcast” to break down the arguments made before the high court on Friday, and explain how he thinks the justices might rule. Also on today's show, we read your letters to the editor and share a good news about a bakery that came to the aid of stranded drivers during a snowstorm in Virginia.  Enjoy the show! Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Get you and your crew to the big shows with Go Transit. Go connects to all the main concert venues like TD Coliseum in Hamilton and Scotia Bank Arena in Toronto. And Go makes it affordable with special e-ticket fares. A one-day weekend pass offers unlimited travel across the network on any weekend day or holiday for just $10. And a weekday group pass offers the same weekday travel flexibility from $30 for two people and up to $60 for five. Buy yours at gotransit.com slash tickets. This is the Daily Signal podcast for Monday, January 10th. I'm Rob Bluey.

And I'm Virginia Allen. Friday was a critical day for American Liberty. The Supreme Court heard two cases challenging President Joe Biden's vaccine mandate for health care workers and businesses with 100 or more employees. Chief Counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice J. Seculo joins the show today to discuss the arguments heard before the High Court and the likelihood of the vaccine mandate being struck down. We also read your letters to the editor and share a good news story to kick off the week. Before we get to today's show, we want to tell you about the most popular resource at the

Heritage Foundation, the guide to the Constitution. More than 100 scholars have contributed to create a unique line-by-line analysis of our Constitution. The guide is intended to provide a brief and accurate explanation of each clause of the Constitution as envisioned by the framers and is applied in contemporary law. There has never been a more important time to have an understanding of our founding document. So if you want to learn more about the Constitution, go ahead and visit heritage.org slash constitution or simply search for Heritage Guide to the Constitution. Now stay tuned for today's show coming up next. Friday was an incredibly important day for our nation. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments for

two cases to determine whether or not a stay will be issued for President Joe Biden's vaccine date. The high court heard arguments for the Biden vaccine and testing mandate for businesses with 100 employees or more and also for the mandate that requires the vaccination of health care workers. Here with me to break down these two cases and the arguments around them heard before the Supreme Court on Friday is Jay Sekulow, the Chief Counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice. Over the past 25 or so years, Mr. Seculo has argued a case. cases 12 times before the U.S. Supreme Court. So it is an honor to have him joining us today to break down these cases. Thank you so much for being here. Thanks for having me. I appreciate it.

Now, I do want to give a brief disclaimer and just let our listeners know that the American Center for Law and Justice filed a lawsuit on behalf of the Heritage Foundation in November, challenging this COVID-19 vaccine mandate and the daily signal is the multimedia outlet of the Heritage Foundation. But before we kind of get into some of the nitty, gritty of what we saw on Friday, Jay, I want to ask you what exactly is at stake here with these vaccine mandates of the challenges? Well, you know, that's a really important question because what's not at stake is the importance of people taking precautions, including vaccines, if they're so inclined. I've been very pro-vaccine. I believe in them.

I myself have been vaccinated. Most of our staff has, not all of them, but most. We don't ignore for a moment that the COVID pandemic is significant and is wrecked havoc. I've lost a brother to COVID, so this is very personal. What I don't like is a government agency that does not have the authority to do this to be implementing it. This is really something that's generally left to the states. And for a good reason, states can tailor the specific, actions to the needs of the community. Here you had a one-size-fits-all mandate that really put a very

difficult situation in play, and that was it mandates, it doesn't actually require simply a vaccine. There's options. One of those options is if you're not vaccinated, you get tested each week, and then you wear a mask in the workplace. The problem with that, of course, is no one can get test right now. So the doctrine of legal impossibility comes into play. But what we saw develop at the Supreme Court, I think, today with these arguments, and the case that we represent Heritage Foundation and we're honored to do it, is one of those cases at the Supreme Court. I mean, we are part of this case.

So our briefs have been filed. The arguments to have placed today impact our case directly. The decision will be our decision. You know, it's interesting because right now the reports are that the courts seem inclined to strike down the matter. mandate probably on the lack of authority ground that OSHA, the agency, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, doesn't have the statutory authority to do what they did. And frankly, I would consider that a significant win. I don't think that arguing against the science or with the

science is the way you win these cases. The court's going to defer to the scientists for that, not the court. But the constitutional authority and statutory authority are real issues, and I think that's what it's going to come down on. I'm cautiously optimistic. Obviously, we requested a stay initially and didn't get it. That was not a great sign, to be honest. I've done 20 cases that the Supreme Court argued about 14 or 15 now. And, you know, you never go, the oral arguments started rough, ended up better.

The problem, of course, is you never go by the, it's very difficult to predict by a Supreme Court oral argument. But indications where there are at least some of the justice were questioning the wisdom of this kind of approach. So as it relates to the first case that we heard arguments for on Friday, which is the vaccine mandate for employers with 100 or more employees or weekly testing, there were kind of two entities that the Supreme Court heard from. One was a coalition of states led by Ohio and the other was the National Federation of Independent businesses. The arguments Friday were for this day on the vaccine mandate. It's supposed to go into effect on Monday. So explain for us what the key argument was made by the Coalition of States and the National Federation of Independent Businesses against the vaccine mandate. So it's interesting that they did take the state's case because the states have a particular interest here, which is that this is really the sovereignty of the state.

The state government usually decides these. As to the National Independent Business Federation, the reason they took that was it kind of represented everybody else's interests. So that's what they did for oral arguments. But everybody's brief, and there were nine sets of cases, everybody's briefs were read, everybody's case were submitted. So the mandate's supposed to go in place Monday. For instance, at our offices in the American Center for Law and Justice, we issued a memorandum last night on the advice of our outside counsel, our human resources council, that we needed to begin the process of finding out who's vaccinated by submitting the vaccine card. Those people don't have to do anything else. If they're vaccinated, don't have to do anything else.

If they're not vaccinated, they have to get tested and also wear a mask. Now, what's interesting is the law said that that mandate for the testing was supposed to take place on Monday, it be in effect Monday. Now the Solicitor General in the United States stands up at the Supreme Court podium today and says, no, no, no, that's not going to be until February. And the reason they did that was because nobody can get the tests. And the government has said that the tests are not readily available right now, acknowledged it. I think the president said, go to Google and see where you can find testing.

And Dr. Fauci has said that the tests are not readily available, that we've dropped the ball there. President also said, President Biden also, I rarely agree, but I'll agree with this statement. He said that this is, the COVID situation is not going to be solved by the federal government. The states will have to do that. He's right. And that's why this entire situation really comes down to, under the Constitution, separation between federal government and state government, 10th Amendment, Commerce Clause, can they actually regulate this in the first place? And then, of course, like I said, the statutory questions of whether OSHA would be the right agency to implement this. OSHA initially said they couldn't implement this. I actually

don't think they can. So like I said, you could be very pro-vaccine, but realize that there is this situation where the federal government is doing an overreach here, and they're just not the agencies that can do this. Were there any arguments made that in particular stuck out to you that you said, oh, yep, that's a really strong argument to be making here, or that maybe you were a little bit surprised was being made. Yeah, let me start with the surprise, and I don't like to challenge advocates that have been arguing, because I always say, I use a boxing analogy. If you're the one in the ring bobbing and weaving, it's very easy to criticize when you're

outside looking in. I've been in that situation a lot over 40 years, so I know what it's like when you're inside the ring. So I don't want to be critical lawyers. I would have made the case much simpler. I would have not gotten into all the science. I think that was a mistake. I don't think the court is going to make a science decision.

They're going to make a constitutional decision. What I would have said is, I would have said exactly what I said, which is what the president said, it's a federal issue. Not really. He said it's a state issue. He said the federal government's not going to be able to solve it. And then you had the practicality of the lack of testing. I thought what was helpful was that the federal government came up,

the Solicitor General, and conceded that an administrative stay might be appropriate, at least for a short period of time. Well, that was a bit of a surprise. But she did that because they are changing the policies as were litigating the case. So I think the biggest surprise was all of a sudden the impact of the application of the mandate, date moves about a month by the Solicitor General who binds the agency. And so she did. And she said, oh, by the way, that's not until February 9th.

So everybody, we're all scratching our head saying, okay, so now we have to send out. And this is the problem with the law. Now we send out another memorandum to our employees around the country tonight and say, oh, by the way, if you haven't been vaccinated now, we don't think you have to be tested. until February 9th, but you do have to wear a mask. So it's changing. And then, you know, as we're talking today, between now and early next week, the CDC is supposed to change the guidelines totally again. So it's a moving target. I think that the, I think where it was effective, the justices picked up on that. What they did not pick up on was arguing the science and not arguing

that this is a significant threat. Because the reality is, and this is the truth, It is true that vaccinated individuals can carry the virus, especially this Omnacron variant, and can pass it on. But the hospitalization rates for people vaccinated are infinitesimal compared to those that get it, the Omicron virus, and end up in the hospital, which is like 98% unvaccinated people. But that's not a workplace issue, which is what OSHA deals with. That is a general population issue that should be handled again by the states. If the states passed a mandate, you send your children to school, they have to have vaccines. There's limited exemptions. So that's the way it works.

But here it was a federal power grab on overreach. And I think the court got to it. It just took an awful long time to get there. So then based on that, based on, and I do want to clarify, we're having this conversation on Friday. Of course, we might know the court's decision by Monday morning. But based on what we saw Friday. I actually think I don't want to cut you off there. We could actually see, I mean, it's possible while you and I are talking right now on Friday afternoon,

it is very possible that I could be picking up my phone in a minute and finding out a stay has been granted. Because one of the things we pushed for was this is going into effect Monday, at least parts of it are. And it's just not for employers. It's an impossible burden and employees too. So they could issue an administrative stay sooner. I didn't mean to cut you off, but that could happen as early as today. No, I appreciate you pointing out that. point of clarification. As far as how the justices rule, I know it's tricky business to try and

predict what the justices are going to do, but from what we saw on Friday, what do you think? Are there any wild cards in the mix among the justices? You gave a disclaimer at the beginning to broadcast. Let me give a disclaimer. I have the worst oral argument I experienced at the Supreme Court in the United States where it felt like I got beat up for 45 minutes. I won 9-0. The case that I thought this was the best oral argument I've ever had, we lost 6.3. So, I mean, it's very hard, it's very hard to judge. But in a case like this, with the magnitude of the case and the attention that it has, I mean, I would say I'm cautiously optimistic.

Would I be shocked if it went 5-4 or 6-3 in favor of the mandate being outside of statutory or constitutional authority? I would not be shocked. Would I be shocked if it was 5-4 against it? in favor of the mandate? I wouldn't be shocked either. It's really close to tell. I am cautiously optimistic. It's interesting that the media is picking up a, putting out a scenario. And I think it's probably right that the court was skeptic. By the end of the hour and a half of argument, the court was skeptical. All right. So I do want to take a few minutes to talk about the difference between the two different cases that

the Supreme Court heard on Friday because we have the one that specifically affects businesses. And then there's one that affects health care workers and and the arguments opposing this were really led by two states Louisiana and Missouri. They argued against the mandate that would require health care workers to be vaccinated. So first and foremost, why are these cases separate? I mean, if the Supreme Court rules to put a state on the mandate for businesses with 100 or more, wouldn't that also apply to health care workers? Yeah. So it's, but the, because of Medicaid and Medicare, that's federal money going to these state facilities or hospital facilities, the, federal government has a different authority that they're asserting to implement a mandate

on health care workers that get federal funds. Now what's interesting there is it's a completely different argument. And the same media that's saying they think the case that we're involved in is going to go in our favor. They think the case involving the hospitals is not. I didn't challenge the hospital one, by the way, because that was more tailored. And there's arguments on both sides, but here's the issue. The argument ended up being in that case that here, the requirement, the mandate that came

down was very specific to a type of employment, hospitals, medical facilities, where the risk is great, as we know. And so it's a much more, at least the argument is, it's a much more tailored response for the mandate than it was in the, if you've got more than 100 employees, everybody has to do the same thing. So it's a different set of laws, a different set of rules, and a different approach. based on the federal funding between Medicare and Medicaid. These hospitals take Medicare and Medicaid, as most every hospital does.

It applies to them. I think that one may be held. I could be proven wrong, but I think that one has a better chance of surviving than the other. There's a different vulnerability, too. I mean, you know, it's an interesting thing. Like at the American Center for Law and Justice, the ACLJ, what we did was as soon as this happened, because we took it very seriously, very quick. We had a number of people that get sick, as I said, I lost my brother to COVID.

So I took this very, very seriously. we installed in our facilities around the country a very good thorough filtration system that the NBA and the Major League Baseball is adopted in their facilities because it had good effect on, you know, abating some of this. And we've been able to avoid any, I mean, we've had people obviously that have COVID, but we haven't had serious, you know, mass outbreaks. We've had cases here and there, but you don't know where the people are getting it from, but we've been very cautious. We've done social distancing. There's times when we've gone to mask when it wasn't required by the government. When we opened in January of this last year, not this January, not the January

but last year, after the December of last year when COVID numbers were horrible. And this day last year, I think almost 4,000 Americans died from COVID. We came back and decided we were going to do testing. We didn't ask, the government didn't have to tell us to do it. We decided that before we put our staff in our office in play and open up our offices in studios again. Everything was being operated remote for eight months, pretty much, other than very limited for things like this, where we'd have a minimal crew in. We put in a testing implementation ourselves, and five people came back positive, and we shut the offices for another two weeks, tested again, and then it was okay. We didn't have to have the government tell us to do it. But that's different than a hospital, I have to say.

So it's a different set of rules at play. It's a different issue. But, you know, I wouldn't be surprised if the court kind of splits it. Goes against one in favor of the other. Wouldn't not be surprising all. Yeah. Now, as you mentioned earlier, it did seem like at points, the justices were a little bit more focused on talking about the COVID-19 pandemic itself

and the emergency of the situation and the sickness. instead of maybe focusing a little bit more on the legality. What did you make of that? Well, I think part of it was, I mean, again, I don't want to be critical of anybody, but I think part of it was the lawyers were talking a little bit too much about numbers and cases and variants, and I think that got the court just into that, which I think was, and some of your colleagues at Heritage Foundation would agree with, and I agree with them, that it got a little bit too into that because no one can deny that this is a very serious unprecedented situation we're dealing with in the United States.

I mean, it's around the globe, actually, but of course, here in the United States as well. So I think part of it was leading off that way by the advocates making those statements in the beginning, it does that. They were trying to make this point that this variant, the Ammocrine variant, is in fact transmittable by people that are vaccinated like me. I mean, I could get it and I can transmit it. It leaves the gap, though, what it doesn't answer, and this is the really interesting, question legally and I think, you know, just philosophically if you want to say that. It's true that I could get it. The chances of me having a serious case of it are infinitesimal because I am vaccinated and boosted. My colleagues that aren't, if they got in, they had

my health underlying conditions, could have a much more serious time or even fatality. Now, that's true, and I believe that's where it is. However, what does that have to do with the workplace as the workplace? Because what they're worried about there is filling up the hospitals, which is a problem right now with people with COVID, so other things are being postponed. Those are all legitimate things. You just have to have the right vehicle and tools to deal with it. You can't just say OSHA do it, just a federal agency do it. It's not even a federal, it's an agency of the federal government doing this. So it's, it's a very weak statutory base to do it, and I think we constitutionally. But again, the difference is, and I think getting into all that

was a big, I don't like saying mistakes, but I would just say I wouldn't have gone there. I would have started with the practicality of the situation. And I would have said, if anything I was going to say about the situation is, it's changing as we speak. I would have said, look, the CDC said before, 9 o'clock this morning, the CDC said they're going to be revising guidelines. So this is, we're putting a mandate in place for guidelines that are being reviewed by the CDC, which it should be on a daily basis to figure out what the best, you know, approaches are. So, you know, this thing was drafted months ago and is being implemented, you know, if it gets implemented Monday, Monday. And it's only around for three more months after that. It's just a lot of a lot going into a very short-sighted,

I think, response. Having said that, let me say, let me say one other thing if I can't. Please. This does not alleviate my concern that we take this virus very seriously. We really need to. Like I said, I lost a 52-year-old brother who was not vaccinated to COVID. And it's serious because his wife and daughter are left and it's a tragic situation. I'm still processing all that from the summer. So it's serious. But that doesn't mean that you just put the constitutional issues on the side and say,

well, this is serious and we're not going to apply the Constitution. You have to apply the Constitution, especially when it's serious. And did those constitutional questions come up adequately during arguments? Were the justices, even though they were asking questions about the virus? itself and COVID, were they also asking the questions about the legal aspect? Was that element fully explored? Okay. Yeah, eventually. It's interesting because the oral arguments now, and I experienced this when I did a couple last year, are different than they were when I argued in the 1980s, 90s, 2000, even 2010, those decades. It was different. We had 30 minutes,

and then when that red light went on, it was over. And now the way just the chief, justice does us and he isn't the authority to do this. The arguments here today went almost four hours. I did one for President Trump, a series of three cases we had, and we were up for four hours between two lawyers. I mean, it's just the way it is now. So eventually, it's a great question you ask, eventually they did get to the constitutional statutory issues. And I actually think that's where the case has decided, one way or another. But there's four votes, or at least three votes, clearly, I think Justice Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan clearly would think the mandate's fine. After that, I think we're guessing.

Educated guessing, but guessing. Sure, sure. So if there is a stay issued, what happens next? Okay, so let's say a stay is issued by the time people are viewing this, a stays in place. So what that means is the mandate doesn't go into effect until there's a final disposition by the court. Now, that could take a week. It could take a month. It could take three months. I mean, you just don't know. It could take two days. Bush versus Gore was decided and then basically 48 hours. So they could write opinions very quickly. I suspect they will here. So if there is a stay,

it could be an administrative stay. That came up during the oral argument. Administrative stay just means we're not deciding the merits right this minute. Instead, what we're going to do is put a stay of the mandate in place so people have time to get this thing working. And, and to figure out what to do. They'll give people a little bit of a breather as they're implementing this. Now, having said that, I think we have to realize that it can be,

that's totally discretionary with the court, and then ultimately I think we get a decision. But right now, the law is that that mandate's effective, albeit the testing aspect of it has been moved to February 9th, according to the Solicitor General. So given your personal expertise of arguing cases before the Supreme Court, is there,

in your professional opinion, is it constitutional? Does OSHA have the constitutional authority to implement a vaccine? I don't, certainly not this one. I don't believe that OSHA, the Occupational Safety Health Administration, has the constitutional or statutory authority to do this. I also believe that it's really, the states could do this. States have done it. I mean, private businesses, by the way, can do it. There are private businesses that if you're not vaccinated, you don't work here. And they have the right to do that. That's not discrimination. The private business has the right to do that.

There's usually a religious liberty or there's freedom exemption or a health exemption. Like we have somebody in our office that if they've got a health issue, that's different. But I am cautiously optimistic that this will work out. Having said that if not, the mandate for people that object to the vaccine, I think the testing obligation is real and it's difficult, but they'll have to comply. People have asked me this all day today. If the Supreme Court rules against our position, what happens? I said, well, that's the law on the land and you've got to comply.

I am not, I'm cautiously optimistic. That's not going to happen. But, you know, we, like I said, we'll know. We can know any moment. Okay. Okay. Wow. Well, Mr. Seculo, you have your own podcast and radio show called

the Seculo Radio Show. And I want to give our listeners an opportunity just to hear a little bit about that from you. You have been giving constant updates on this case and really informing your own listeners. What is at stake here? So tell us a little bit about how we can be following your work as you continue to be reporting on this case. Yeah, well, I appreciate that. So we've had a radio broadcast since 1997. That's on just about every most conservative talk radio and Christian talk radio in the country. you can go to ACLJ.org and get all kinds of information. Of course, you can download, you can listen to it on podcasts, wherever you get podcasts, Facebook, YouTube, Rumble, whatever social media. We broadcast the video version of it every day.

We had to do it remote today. I'm actually not in my office because at our facilities, we had seven inches of snow, which in where I live, that shuts everything down. Now in Washington, it would only be for a couple of days, but here it's like a shutdown for a while. But we did it remote. So at ACLJ.org, there's a lot of information. We've been doing this since 1987, so a long time. And we've got a great group.

I know you're a Regent Graduate. We have a great group of Regent graduates that are the emerging real leaders now of the next generation leadership of our organization, both here in the United States and around the globe. So a lot of issues here. And it really has been an honor to represent. I've been a fan of the Heritage Foundation. We've worked together for many, many decades on legislation, all kinds of issues. But to represent Heritage in court, the first time Heritage went to court on anything.

and to have heritage leadership select the ACLJ was an honor. We were honored to represent you all. And just a historic moment for all of us. Hopefully we'll get a good decision. I think, like I said, I'm going to go into the weekend cautiously optimistic. Yeah, absolutely. I think we all are going to be following this closely. But Jay, thank you for your time.

Thank you for your work on this critical issue. Like you say, this is a big moment in American history. So we really appreciate your time. Thank you so much. Thanks for having me. If you're tired of high taxes, fewer health care choices, and bigger and bigger government, it's time to partner with the most impactful conservative organization in America. We're the Heritage Foundation, and we're committed to solving the issues America faces.

Together, we'll fight back against the rising tide of homegrown socialism, and we'll fight for conservative solutions that are making families more free and more prosperous. But we can't do it without you. Please join us at heritage.org. Thanks for sending us your letters to the editor. Each Monday we feature our favorites on this show. Virginia, who's up first? In response to my recent commentary piece,

wokeism ended his father's teaching career. Now this teacher has a warning for other educators. Benjamin writes, I am in my 29th year of teaching at a high school in Pennsylvania, and I am very concerned about the same trends that were mentioned in the article. The quote from Albert saying, because students are now being conditioned to basically look at the world based on their feelings if something is disagreeable to their emotional well-being, well, then it's unacceptable

and therefore it has to be eliminated or in some way silenced, is exactly what's wrong with the trend in public education. If something isn't done soon to change that direction, I fear for the future of public education and fear especially for the children. And in response to Victor Davis Hansen's commentary, the ungracious generation and its demonization of the past, Catherine writes, Bravo. So perfectly stated, every high school and college student should be encouraged to read and discuss and debate with their parents and grandparents because the radical and socialist teachers of today would have a hard time explaining. Beautiful article. Thank you, Dr. Hansen. Your letter could be featured on next week's show.

So send us an email at Letters at DailySignal.com. Virginia Allen here, I want to tell you all about one of my favorite podcasts. Heritage Explains is a weekly podcast that breaks down all the policy issues we hear about in the news at a 101 level. Hosts Michelle Cordero and Tim Desher mix in news clips and music to tell a story, but also bring in heritage experts to help break down complex issues. Heritage Explains offers quick 10 to 50 minute explainers that bring you up to speed in an entertaining way. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Google Play, Spotify, or wherever you listen to your podcast. We even put the full episode on YouTube.

Virginia, you have a good news story to share with us today. Over to you. Thanks so much, Rob. Hospitality comes in many forms, even just a loaf of bread on a snowy day. Here in the nation's capital and across the mid-Atlantic and northeast, we kicked off 2022 with quite a bit of snow and ice. While very beautiful, the snowstorm last Monday left hundreds of drivers stranded on I-95 in Virginia, some for more than 24 hours. Husband and wife, Casey Hollahan, and John No, were traveling down to North Carolina from their home in Maryland. John serves in the Air Force, and the couple was making the trip south to visit family before John leaves to be stationed in Germany. But the couple got caught in the storm.

After spending more than 16 hours sitting in their car and not moving at all on I-95, Casey and John were exhausted and famished. Casey noticed a Schmidt Bakery truck on the road a short distance in front of her. The truck gave her an idea, as she told WBAL 11 Baltimore. Kind of on a whim, I just called the customer service line of Schmidt's bread, and I kind of begged them to open the back of the truck, just give us a couple of loafs of bread so we can share with people around us. 20 minutes after calling Schmidt's customer service line,

Casey received a call from Chuck Pataraakis, the owner of the Baltimore-based H&S Bakery, which owns Schmidt. The bakery's owner told Casey that he had been in touch with the driver of the truck, Ron Hill, and the couple was welcome to go get bread not only for themselves, but also to pass out to as many people as they could who were in the surrounding vehicles. Ron, Casey, and John proceeded to pass out the bread to the stranded drivers over a two-mile stretch of road. And we just kept giving it out until we couldn't walk anymore because it was so freezing. It felt incredible.

Just hearing people say thank you and hearing people just so relieved to finally have food in their car, food in their system, and their kids' system, it was a really incredible feeling. Chuck Patiracus, the bakeries owner, told WBAL he is so glad his company, could fill the bellies of some of the people who were stranded on the icy road for hours. I am so pleased that people that were hungry that haven't been eaten for the past 24 hours had a chance, even if it was bread, had a chance to fill her stomachs up. So it was very gratifying to me. It's something I'll always remember. The roads were finally cleared in Virginia, but the storm last week is certainly something the drivers who were caught in it,

and the folks at Schmidt Bakery won't be forgetting anytime soon. Virginia, thanks for sharing that story today. We're going to leave it there on the Daily Signal podcast. You can find our show on the Rurkishay Audio Network, and all of the Daily Signal Podcasts are available at daily signal.com slash podcasts. You can also subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Google Play, or your favorite podcast app. And be sure to listen every weekday by adding the Daily Signal podcast

as part of your Alexa Flash Briefing. If you like what you hear, please leave us a review and a five-star rating. It means a lot to us and helps us spread the word to other listeners. Be sure to follow us on Twitter. at DailySignal and Facebook.com slash the DailySignal News. Have a great week. The Daily Signal podcast is brought to you by more than half a million members of the Heritage Foundation. It is executive produced by Rob Blewey and Virginia Allen.

Sound design by Lauren Evans, Mark Geinney, and John Pop. For more information, visit DailySignal.com.