A U.S. District Judge has enjoined the Biden White House’s vaccine mandate for federal employees, in yet another rebuke of the Biden presidency and COVID-related diktats. The news comes just days after the Supreme Court stayed the regime’s use of OSHA to coerce millions of Americans to get the decreasingly effective injections.
Judge Jeffrey Vincent Brown of the Texas Southern District ruled for the plaintiffs in the case Feds for Medical Freedom v. Joseph R. Biden in a January 21st decision. Feds for Medical Freedom describes itself as a grassroots coalition comprised of thousands of public employees which formed in opposition to draconian COVID-19 health mandates.
The ruling will enjoin an Executive Order enacted by President Biden, which stipulated that all federal government contractors, subcontractors, and employees must receive COVID-19 shots.
“The first, Executive Order 14042, is already the subject of a nationwide injunction. Because that injunction protects the plaintiffs from imminent harm, the court declines to enjoin the first order. The second, Executive Order 14043, amounts to a presidential mandate that all federal employees consent to vaccination against COVID-19 or lose their jobs. Because the President’s authority is not that broad, the court will enjoin the second order’s enforcement,” explains the opinion.
“Because injunctive relief is an extraordinary tool to be wielded sparingly, the court should be convinced the plaintiffs face irreparable harm before awarding it,” reasons the court before asserting “the court is so convinced.”
The case is “about whether the President can, with the stroke of a pen and without the input of Congress, require millions of federal employees to undergo a medical procedure as a condition of their employment,” reasoned Judge Brown. “That, under the current state of the law as just recently expressed by the Supreme Court, is a bridge too far,” the opinion continues.
The plaintiff’s arguments fell into two categories: “(1) that the President’s action was ultra vires as there is no statute authorizing him to issue the mandate and the inherent authority he enjoys under Article II is not sufficient, and (2) that the agencies’ implementation of his order violates the Administrative Procedures Act (APA).”
Appearing to side with Feds for Medical Freedom’s rationale, Judge Brown’s opinion contends that the attempted vaccine mandate “exceeds” the limits of presidential power:
And what is that limit? […] The government has offered no answer—no limiting principle to the reach of the power they insist the President enjoys. For its part, this court will say only this: however extensive that power is, the federal-worker mandate exceeds it.
“Regardless of what the conventional wisdom may be concerning vaccination, no legal remedy adequately protects the liberty interests of employees who must choose between violating a mandate of doubtful validity or consenting to an unwanted medical procedure that cannot be undone,” notes Judge Brown.