How is mandating a remote employee, who's clearly not moving around a legitimate interstate interest. Pray do tell. In general, non-kangaroo courts require laws to be written to be suitably tailored and narrow in scope.

>How is mandating a remote employee, who's clearly not moving around a legitimate interstate interest

Do I get to use the same asinine reasoning they used in Wickard v. Filburn?

Because if not then your guess is as good as mine.

I agree that requiring large employers to require vaccines has a more significant effect on interstate commerce that a person growing wheat for their own use. I think it's a similar order of magnitude though.