A handful of states have joined the growing list of jurisdictions involved in challenges to the legality of federal vaccination warrants for government contractors enacted under Executive Order 14042. Despite federal objections, Examining Magistrate David D. United States District Court Eastern Wedding Party The Missouri District has issued an order supporting a preliminary injunction that prohibits the enforcement of COVID-19 vaccination warrants for employees of federal contractors. (Missouri v. Biden, n ° 4:21 CV 1300 DDN, 2021 US Dist. LEXIS 242142, at * 3, 22-23 (December 20, 2021).) The decision was made in favor of a group of claimant states – Alaska, Arkansas, Iowa, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Dakota North, South Dakota and Wyoming. (Username. at * 5, 22-23.)
The analysis of this court joins that of several other federal courts,1 ruling that several of the plaintiffs had standing to challenge the vaccination mandate2 and that the mandate probably exceeds the presidential authority granted under the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act (FPASA).3 (Username. at * 7-16.) The court also determined that the warrant “likely does not violate the expense clause, one of the listed powers of Congress.
[and] that the plaintiffs are unlikely to succeed in their allegation of a violation of the Tenth Amendment. “(Username. at * 18.) However, this did not prevent the court from issuing a preliminary injunction. The court assessed the costs associated with complying with the mandate and “concluding[d] that the complainants w[ould] suffer irreparable harm in their capacity as federal contractors. “(Username. at * 18-21.) After balancing these prejudices against the public interest, the court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and found that these factors “weighed in favor of a preliminary injunction”. (Username. at * 21-22.) The scope of the injunction was limited to “claimant states [that we]properly before the Court. “(Username. to * 22.)
Status of injunctions at the national level
In addition to being litigated in the Eastern District of Missouri, this issue has been taken to federal courts in Kentucky,4 Georgia5 and Florida.6 The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has also recently been involved. Following the decision to grant an injunction in Georgia v. Biden, the federal government appealed.seven At the same time as this appeal, the government decided to suspend the preliminary injunction.8 On December 17, 2021, the Eleventh Circuit rejected the federal government’s motion, determining that the government had not “established one of the “most critical” factors: he will be irreparably injured in the absence of a reprieve. “(Georgia v. President, Case No. 21-14269-F (11th Cir. Dec. 17, 2021).) The Eleventh Circuit has yet to rule on the government’s appeal.
1. See, for example, Kentucky v. Biden, Civil No. 3: 21-cv-00055-GFVT, 2021 US Dist. LEXIS 228316, at * 44 (ED Ky. November 30, 2021); Georgia v. Biden, Civil No. 1: 21-cv-163, 2021 US Dist. LEXIS 234032, at * 39 (SD Ga. December 7, 2021);
Florida v. Nelson, civil n ° 8: 21-cv-2524-SDM-TGW, Dkt. N ° 37 (MD Fla. December 22, 2021) (granting a preliminary injunction after finding a “substantial likelihood that Executive Decree 14042 exceeds the authority of the President under FPASA”).
2. Despite the conclusion that the complainants parens patriae claims to constitute “challenges to the functioning of the federal vaccine mandate” for which “[p]the complainants[id] lack standing ”, the court ultimately determined that“ Missouri ha[d] quality with regard to both sovereign interests and federal entrepreneurial status, its quality. . . sufficient to allow the examination. Missouri v. Biden, 2021 US Dist. LEXIS 242142 at * 7-11.
3. “[P]Complainants are likely to be successful on whether there is a sufficiently strong link between efficiency and economy in the procurement and mandate of immunization. . . .
[Because] if . . . EO 14042 establishes a sufficient link, then the president would be able to mandate virtually any public health measure that would result in a healthier entrepreneurial workforce. . . . ” Username. at * 14-15.
4. Kentucky v. Biden, Civil No. 3: 21-cv-00055-GFVT, 2021 US Dist. LEXIS 228316, at * 44 (ED Ky. November 30, 2021).
5. Georgia v. Biden, Civil No. 1: 21-cv-163, 2021 US Dist. LEXIS 234032, at * 39 (SD Ga. December 7, 2021).
6. Florida v. Nelson, civil n ° 8: 21-cv-2524-SDM-TGW, Dkt. N ° 37 (MD Fla. December 22, 2021).
seven. See Notice of appeal of the defendants, civil no.1: 21-cv-00163-RSB-BKE, Dkt. N ° 96 (SD Ga. December 9, 2021).
8. See Motion to stay the appeal of the defendants-appellants, n ° 21-14269 (11th Cir. December 10, 2021).
Visit us on mayerbrown.com
Mayer Brown is a global provider of legal services comprising law firms that are separate entities (the “Mayer Brown Practices”). The Mayer Brown Firms are: Mayer Brown LLP and Mayer Brown Europe – Brussels LLP, two limited liability companies established in Illinois in the United States; Mayer Brown International LLP, a limited liability company incorporated in England and Wales (authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority and registered in England and Wales under number OC 303359); Mayer Brown, a SELAS established in France; Mayer Brown JSM, a partnership of Hong Kong and its associated entities in Asia; and Tauil & Checker Advogados, a Brazilian law partnership in which Mayer Brown is associated. “Mayer Brown” and the Mayer Brown logo are registered trademarks of Mayer Brown Practices in their respective jurisdictions.
© Copyright 2020. The Practices of Mayer Brown. All rights reserved.
This article by Mayer Brown provides information and commentary on legal issues and developments of interest. The foregoing does not constitute a complete treatment of the matter at hand and is not intended to provide legal advice. Readers should seek specific legal advice before taking any action on the matters discussed in this document.