President Joe Biden does not appear to have the authority to require vaccines for employees of federal contractors and subcontractors, a federal court judge in Lexington, Ky., ruled Dec. 1, halting implementation of the mandate in three states that filed suit against it—Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee—until the case merits are decided.
The states had claimed that Biden's executive order, announced in September, was unconstitutional. The order set anOct. 15effective date;mandated vaccine requirements be included in new contracts as of Nov. 14; and required employee vaccinations by Dec. 8. The deadline for full vaccination has since been moved to Jan. 18. The president also sought a mandate amendment to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), which governs federal procurement.
Biden administration officials have strongly argued that the federal government has the legal authority to require the mandates.
In his ruling, U.S. District Court Judge Gregory F. Van Tatenhove, appointed by President George Bush, has taken the opposite stance.
“Can the President use congressionally-delegated authority to manage the federal procurement of goods and services to impose vaccines” on the federal contractor workforce? asked Van Tatenhove. “In all likelihood, the answer to that question is no.”
The judge disputes the government’s contention that the states lacked standing to sue because the mandate only applied to future contracts. He said that some agencies are applying the mandate to current contracts, with contractors fearful of being "blacklisted from future contracting opportunities.”
Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee state agencies, as well as contractors based in those states, had about $9.9 billion, $12.5 billion, and $10 billion in government contracts in 2020, respectively, according to the ruling.
The mandate exceeds contracting authority, Van Tatenhove said, noting that the Biden administration use of a 1949 procurement statute to justify it “could be used to enact virtually any measure at the president’s whim under the guise of economy and efficiency. This power has its limits.”
联邦承包商疫苗命令在11月初遵循美国职业安全与健康管理局的紧急临时标准，该标准涵盖了所有拥有100名或以上雇员的雇主，以及其他向联邦工人和医疗保健公司付费的雇主Medicare。所有人都面临着法律挑战。
States and private entities, including the Associated Builders and Contractors, joined in lawsuits against the large-employer OSHA standard in a number of courts, with the U.S. Court of Appeals in New Orleans temporarily halting it on Nov. 12, and the Cincinnati appellate court set to consider the now consolidated lawsuits. That case is expected to reach the U.S. Supreme Court, observers say.
有关federal contractor order temporary halt, Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron termed it “a significant ruling." The Justice Dept. had not issued a statement by ENR posting time.
Even so, some legal experts say the federal government may still win on the merits of its order. “It is going to be more defensible” than the OSHA standard, Stewart Schwab, employment law professor at Cornell University, told Bloomberg Law. “It plays out differently than OSHA, because no company has to take a government contract,” he said.
索尔·尤因斯坦（Saul Ewing Arnstein）和列尔（Saul Ewing Arnstein＆Lehr）的劳动和就业律师罗布·达斯顿（Rob Duston）指出，漫长的历史“广泛的酌处权，对合同中的要求施加要求”。他指出，与其他私营部门公司更为严格的领域，这些领域已经有效了30多年。
