Another Federal Court Blocks Fed Contractor Mandate
The vaccine mandate was set to go into effect on January 4, but is now facing a nationwide halt thanks to the decision by a federal judge in Georgia. The case in question, Georgia v. President Joe Biden, also includes plaintiffs from the states of Alabama, Idaho, Kansas, South Carolina, Utah, and West Virginia.
“Executive Order 14042 is astonishing— not only for its tremendous breadth and unworkably short deadline, but also because so little care has been given to how it will work in the real world,” it states.
Mike, would you be willing to write up a short summary of all the successful court challenges to various Federal (and more local?) mandates thus far? Which are the real biggies? What is your big picture commentary now on this topic? I know that there has been one for instance related to the armed forces mandate and the (lack of) approved Cominarty vials. Thank you, Jim
Normally , the job of the government is for the health and welfare of its citizens. However, for a country that does not provide health care to its citizens, they should have little say, in the healthcare of person. But even if not, like most other countries, people still have freedoms over their bodies.
I have actually started work on something like that. But I don’t know if I will complete it.
There are two problems.
First, one of the many reasons that I retired from the practice of law was that I was approaching burnout from too many years of brutally long hours under intense pressure.
Second, I no longer have access to Westlaw (an online legal research tool.) That makes it difficult for me when I want to look into more nuanced questions of law.
So I do have a commentary that I started working on a few weeks ago but I don’t know if I will finish it.
I will say this. The Federal issues and the State issues are completely different.
The Federal Courts that have looked at Biden’s executive orders have uniformly found that Biden’s actions constitute a vast overreach of his actual powers. Put bluntly, the initial decisions of these courts conclude that Biden was never given the power by Congress to do the things he has attempted to do. It is important to note that these are initial – not necessarily final decisions. The initial decisions were necessary to decide the issue of granting temporary injunctions pending the courts final ruling. Temporary injunctions are often issued to preserve the status quo pending a final decision. But in deciding to issue a Temporary injunction, a court must look as to which of the parties to the suit will probably succeed in the end. The courts have thus far found that the Plaintiffs will probably succeed and Biden probably will lose.
Different principles of substantive law are in play in State courts. So the rejections of these mandates (so far) in Federal Courts won’t necessarily have any effect on such mandates at the State level.
But even that is not clear (and this is why non-access to Westlaw is a problem.) The Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution has been deemed to be applicable to the States. Without going into great detail as to what that means, in general it means that if a Federal Constitutional right exists to prevent certain forced medical interventions then that right would also be binding on the States as well. I know that there are cases on issues like this but I am sure it would take a massive amount of research to sort it all out.
As far as I know, no Federal Court has to date addressed the issue of a constitutional right to prevent forced medical interventions under the facts presented by the Covid 19 epidemic. I do not think that the widely cited Jacobson case is dispositive of the issue.
The summary you have provided us with is very informative… Thank God we have a republic and the Constitution that we do have.
not to get off the subject but Germany has it down reading this kinda funny in a not so funny way
Germany’s 16 states to bar the unvaccinated from access to all but the most essential businesses such as grocery stores, pharmacies and bakeries. WE all know bakeries are vital to life..lol
but really this is just FK up..
One problem appears to be that the Biden Administration seems to just ignore these injunctions and presses ahead with their plans in spite of them. That leads to companies, institutions, and individuals following these illegal and unconstitutional mandates. I’m not sure what the recourse is for that.
A second Democrat has now joined the Republicans in the Senate to block and repeal Biden’s vaccine mandates. Of course, the Democrats still have a majority in the House of Representatives, but they would have to publicly vote to support the mandates to stop the repeal initiative. Voting like that could, in many states, end their careers. And such pro-mandate votes might be useless if the courts strike down the mandates anyway.
I have also found that a local court in Belgium has found that vaccine passports violate the laws of Belgium protecting human rights.
While I’m certainly glad for this injunction, I am completely disgusted that this was able to progress to the point where my company’s HR department now has documented my deeply private religious beliefs, to which I had to attest in the form of a religious exemption request. Some of the questions probably rose to the level of not ethical (“what is my opinion of monoclonal antibodies”???).
Employees have been made to disclose our private medical records, our religious beliefs… and while any idiot could have surmised that this “mandate” would be met with some legal challenges, some companies still decided to roll out the policy with all haste.
And now here we are. So glad some HR lady and lord knows who else is aware of my views on abortion. Totally not invasion of privacy and extreme corporate overreach.
Don’t let this feel like complete victory. It’s not. We were still hassled, and I don’t ever think we will ever be given a rightful apology.