{"id":5445,"date":"2022-01-26T09:05:00","date_gmt":"2022-01-26T14:05:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/employerdefensereport.com\/?p=5445"},"modified":"2026-03-01T17:36:25","modified_gmt":"2026-03-01T22:36:25","slug":"the-latest-with-pres-bidens-federal-contractor-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-executive-order","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/employer-defense-report\/the-latest-with-pres-bidens-federal-contractor-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-executive-order\/","title":{"rendered":"The Latest with Pres. Biden\u2019s Federal Contractor COVID-19 Vaccine-Mandate Executive Order"},"content":{"rendered":"

By Conn Maciel Carey LLP\u2019s\u00a0COVID-19 Task Force<\/a><\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

It has been a real adventure trying to track all the different legal challenges in so many different courts to President Biden\u2019s various different executive actions related to vaccination.\u00a0 While the fate of the OSHA Vaccinate-or-Test ETS (dead) and the CMC Healthcare Vaccine-Mandate (very much alive) are essentially settled by the Supreme Court, the Federal Contractor Vaccine-Mandate Executive Order (EO 14042) is still meandering its way through the federal courts.\u00a0 And there was a lot of activity in the courts this past Friday, January 21st<\/sup>, regarding the federal contractor EO and the federal employee vaccination mandate.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>In the first case,\u00a0Feds for\u00a0Medical Freedom v. Biden<\/u><\/em>, employees of federal contractors and employees of the federal government together are challenging both Executive Orders 14042 (vaccine-mandate for federal contractors) and 14043 (vaccine-mandate for federal employees).\u00a0 Judge Jeffrey V. Brown (a\u00a0Trump-appointee to the S.D. of Texas) issued an opinion and order enjoining only enforcement of the federal employee mandate.\u00a0\u00a0Judge Brown\u2019s reasoning in that case boiled down to a conclusion that injunctive relief is appropriate because: (1) the \u201cHobson\u2019s Choice\u201d of a workplace vaccine-mandate creates irreparable harm; and (2) the challenging federal employees have a likelihood of success on the merits because the President acted\u00a0ultra vires\u00a0<\/em>and the implementation of EO 14043 violates the Administrative Procedures Act.\u00a0\u00a0Notably, Judge Brown declined to take action with regard to the federal contractor EO, noting that\u00a0Judge R. Stan Baker (a Trump appointee to the S.D. of Georgia) in\u00a0Georgia v. Biden<\/u><\/em>\u00a0had previously enjoined the federal government from enforcing the vaccination mandate on a nationwide basis.<\/p>\n

While Judge Brown\u2019s decision in\u00a0Feds for Medical Freedom v. Biden<\/u><\/em>\u00a0did not change the status of the federal contractor EO, on the same day, Judge Baker issued a new order with regard to the injunction he had put in place in\u00a0Georgia v. Biden<\/u><\/em>\u00a0in December.\u00a0\u00a0First, Judge Baker declined to address whether private federal contractors are enjoined from mutually agreeing with a federal agency to include COVID-19 safety clauses in their contracts; i.e., to voluntarily comply with the Safer Federal Workforce Task Force (\u201cTask Force\u201d) guidelines, as he viewed that as improperly seeking an advisory opinion while the case is pending on appeal.\u00a0\u00a0But on the broader question as to the scope of his national injunction, on Friday he wrote:<\/span><\/p>\n

The answer to the inquiry is evident from the language the Court used\u2014as well as the language the Court noticeably did not use\u2014in issuing the injunction [in December].\u00a0 The Court stated, \u201cDefendants are\u00a0ENJOINED\u00a0<\/strong>\u2026 from enforcing the vaccine mandate\u2026.\u201d Accordingly, no clarification is necessary. Indeed, Plaintiffs\u2019 Amended Complaint asks, in its Prayer for Relief, for the Court to \u201c[e]nter a declaratory judgment that Defendants \u2026 have acted to impose a broad-sweeping, unlawful, and unconstitutional COVID-19 vaccine-mandate, and that such COVID-19 vaccine-mandate is unlawful and unenforceable,\u201d and for the Court to \u201c[g]rant a preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants and those acting in concert with them from enforcing this broad sweeping, unlawful, and unconstitutional mandate.\u201d While there was evidence before the Court indicating that other COVID-19 safety-related requirements were also established as a result of the Executive Order (i.e., masking and physical distancing\u00a0requirements), the evidence and arguments presented to the Court in the parties\u2019 briefs and at the hearing on the Motion for Preliminary Injunction focused almost exclusively on the\u00a0vaccination requirement, and the Court\u2019s Order on the Motion for Preliminary Injunction did not reference, discuss, or analyze any of the other COVID-19 safety-related requirements.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This ruling is consistent with preliminary injunctions issued in two other federal district courts that focused only on the vaccination requirements in the federal contractor EO:<\/p>\n