Pandemic Timeline

Judgments, Uncategorized

Court issues injunction against federal contractor vaccine mandate

Tags:

Initially, this affected only the three plaintiff states: Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee.  Now, another ruling has been handed down that affects the remaining states as well.  The second ruling was issued nationwide because one of the plaintiffs in the case does business nationwide.

🔥 Also yesterday, a federal district court in Kentucky became the first court to enjoin the Biden Executive Order Mandate for federal contractors, albeit only in three states (for now). The court said the president can’t just order everybody to take injections:

“Can the president use congressionally delegated authority to manage the federal procurement of goods and services to impose vaccines on the employees of federal contractors and subcontractors? In all likelihood, the answer to that question is no.”

Nope.

The feds argued that, hey, this mandate only applies to FUTURE contracts, so there’s no harm to anybody right now. So there shouldn’t be an injunction. But the court was having none of it:

“[I]f the government is already attempting to require contracts not officially covered by the vaccine mandate to still include such a mandate, it stands to reason that contractors who do not comply will likely be blacklisted from future contracting opportunities if they refuse to comply. This is particularly true given President Biden’s remarks on September 7: ‘If you want to work with the federal government, vaccinate your workforce.’”

Common sense!

The court considered whether the Biden Contractor Mandate had any legitimate relationship with federal contracting, and found that it did NOT:

“Defendants argue that the nexus between the vaccine mandate and economy and efficiency in federal contracting ‘is self-evident.’ [But] While the statute grants to the president great discretion, it strains credulity that Congress intended … a procurement statute to be the basis for promulgating a public health measure such as mandatory vaccination.”

More common sense. The court said look, if the president can do THIS under a procurement statute, he can do ANYTHING:

“If a vaccination mandate has a close enough nexus to economy and efficiency in federal procurement, then the statute could be used to enact virtually any measure at the president’s whim under the guise of economy and efficiency. “

Haha! It got better! The court then put fat-shaming on the table:

“Under the same logic employed by the Defendants regarding the vaccine mandate, what would stop FPASA from being used to permit federal agencies to refuse to contract with contractors and subcontractors who employ individuals over a certain BMI for the sake of economy and efficiency during the pandemic? After all, the CDC has declared that obesity worsens the outcomes from Covid-19.”

Take that, CDC fat shamers!

The irrationality of the mandate, and the president’s lack of authority are good. But the best part was when the court got to the constitutional issues. First, it identified the core principle, the separation of powers issue:

“Under the nondelegation doctrine, Congress may not delegate legislative power to the President to exercise an unfettered discretion to make whatever laws he thinks may be needed or advisable.”

Thank you! Even though he thinks he’s a dictator — if he thinks at all — Biden can’t just make up whatever deranged and demented laws he or Fauci can think of. That’s what we have a legislature for.

Another bit of great news in the decision is that — like the Missouri decision — this court ratified my reading of the Jacobson decision, a view the “experts” have completely ignored since the beginning of the pandemic. My view is that Jacobson says that vaccine mandates are left to state law, and the Louisiana court seems to agree:

“The Court is also concerned that the vaccine mandate intrudes on an area that is traditionally reserved to the States. … Generally, the regulation of health and safety matters is primarily and historically, a matter of local concern. … The Commerce Clause power may be expansive, but it does not grant Congress the power to regulate noneconomic inactivity traditionally within the States’ police power. In sum, the Mandate would far exceed current constitutional authority.”

Maybe you need to be a lawyer to get it, but the phrase “regulate noneconomic inactivity” is intentionally hilarious. The court (citing the Fifth Circuit) is saying the federal government is trying to make laws about things we aren’t even thinking of doing. Super LOL.

Ultimately the judge considered whether the injunction should be extended nationwide, but due to conservative principles developed during the Trump administration when Hawaii kept enjoining everything Trump did, it limited the order to the three plaintiff states, Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee.

Despite its limited application, the decision gives the other states a template and some new law to cite. Since the federal contractor mandate doesn’t kick in immediately, there’s time for the other states to get in gear, and contractors should now hold off on their mandates, since it looks likely that the EO will fall.

— Jeff Childers with quotes from Judge Gregory F. Van Tatenhove

Jeff Childers has now chimed in on the Georgia case:

🔥 Freedom and the rule of law are now three for three. After a Kentucky judge enjoined Biden’s Federal Contractor Mandate in three states, another judge — this one in Georgia — has also halted the mandate, this time nationwide. Now, all three big mandates are frozen: OSHA, CMS, and now, the Federal Contractor Mandate.

Seven states including Georgia sued to stop the Federal Contractor Mandate. Judge Baker — a 2017 Trump appointee — found they were likely to succeed in their lawsuit to declare the mandate unconstitutional. The judge rejected the idea that “emergencies” trump the Constitution:

“Even in times of crisis this Court must preserve the rule of law and ensure that all branches of government act within the bounds of their constitutionally granted authorities.”

In this decision, the Court carefully avoided the factual issue of whether the vaccines “work” or not and just focused on the constitutional issues. In other words, it doesn’t MATTER whether the injections work, it is STILL unconstitutional. As I have said repeatedly. This is the same reasoning I used in my successful mask case from last year. It doesn’t MATTER whether masks work. It’s still unconstitutional.

— Jeff Childers with quote from Judge R. Stan Baker

Well, not quite.  It’s three of four.  The military mandate still stands, even though the judge in that case gave the service members an out.

Please note that these cases win based on law or constitutionality.  Whether the jabs work or not is not at issue in these cases.

Including such considerations may have been what caused the judge in the military case to conclude that the case would not succeed.  Considerations of whether the jabs work or not perhaps more appropriately belong in a criminal case.

Sources:

See also, on this site:

Comments are closed.