Court upholds injunction against Biden COVID-19 vaccine mandate for federal contractors in three states
"We will continue to stand up against the Biden Administration's abuses of power that threaten us now and in the future," Landry said in a statement.
The government had argued that the president had broad statutory authority to issue policies that "provide the Federal Government with an economical and efficient system" of contractor operations under the Procurement Act. The suing states said this interpretation of the law had no limiting principle. Biden's administration countered that "presidential authority under the Procurement Act is constrained by the statute's text, which requires that any executive order bear a close nexus to the statutory goals of establishing ‘an economical and efficient system’ for federal procurement and contracting."
The court agreed with the states that the government's "closed nexus" test unlawfully gives the president "nearly unlimited authority" to impose requirements on federal contractors.
"Hypothetically, the President could mandate that all employees of federal contractors reduce their BMI below a certain number on the theory that obesity is a primary contributor to unhealthiness and absenteeism," the majority opinion by Judge Kurt Engelhardt said. "Under the Government’s theory of the case, the only practical limit on presidential authority in this sphere is the executive’s ability to tie policy priorities to a notion of economy or efficiency."
The majority further said that under the government's argument, any president "would have little difficulty" issuing requirements on federal contractors "that their employees take daily vitamins, live in smoke-free homes, exercise three times a week, or even, at the extremity, take birth control in order to reduce absenteeism relating to childbirth and care."
"To allow this mandate to remain in place would be to ratify an ‘enormous and transformative expansion in’ the President’s power under the Procurement Act," the 5th Circuit panel said. "Under Supreme Court precedent, this Court cannot permit such a mandate to remain in place absent a clear statement by Congress that it wishes to endow the presidency with such power."
The judges also rejected the government's contention that the special circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic endowed the president with special, un-checked powers.
"The difference here, the Government suggested, is at least in part that we are facing a ‘once-in-a-century’ pandemic. The Constitution is not abrogated in a pandemic," the court said. "Nor, as the Supreme Court’s COVID-related decisions make clear, are our legal principles of statutory interpretation … And nor, for that matter, is Congress, who could have drafted vaccination-related laws or even made clear its intent regarding the President’s proprietary authority in federal contracting or employing."
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.