Client Alerts & Insights
Biden Vaccine Mandate Blocked
December 21, 2022
Authored By:
The Fifth Circuit in Louisiana v. Biden upheld a Louisiana federal district court in blocking President Biden’s vaccine mandate on December 19, 2022, in a 2-1 decision, prohibiting the Biden administration from enforcing the mandate in Louisiana, Indiana, or Mississippi.
The Biden administration issued several COVID-19 mandates, including an Executive Order on September 9, 2021, at issue in this litigation. The Executive Order instructed that “in order to promote economy and efficiency in procurement by contracting with sources that provide adequate COVID-19 safeguards for their workplace,” government contracts must include a clause specifying that the contractor and any subcontractors must comply with all guidance from the Safer Federal Workforce Task Force. Guidance from the Task Force followed, ultimately calling for all federal contractors to require their employees to be vaccinated against COVID-19 or be subject to masking and testing requirements.
Three states sued in Louisiana federal court. The district court reviewed the four factors applicable in granting a preliminary injunction – (1) a likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a substantial threat of irreparable injury; (3) that the threatened injury if the injunction is denied outweighs any harm that will result if the injunction is granted; and (4) that the grant of an injunction will not disserve the public interest – and granted the injunction. The Biden administration appealed.
The Executive Order was issued under the Procurement Act, which gives the president authority to prescribe policies and directives necessary for establishing an economical and efficient system for federal procurement and contracting. The Fifth Circuit concluded that although questions surrounding the vaccine and the pandemic generally are undoubtedly of “vast economic and political significance,” Congress has not spoken clearly to authorize such a dramatic shift in the exercise of the President’s power under the Procurement Act. The court called the use of the Procurement Act to reach through an employing contactor to force obligations on individual employees “truly unprecedented” and found the states demonstrated a strong likelihood of success on the merits. The court also found that the balance of harms to the state and the public interest weighed in favor of blocking the mandate.
The Fifth Circuit is not the only court to consider the issue. In August, the Eleventh Circuit granted President Biden a limited victory when it partially overturned a nationwide injunction blocking the mandate, restricting the Biden administration’s enforcement to only seven states. The Sixth and Eighth Circuits also heard oral arguments regarding the vaccine mandate after two lower courts issued preliminary injunctions blocking the mandate but have not yet issued decisions.
For more information, please contact a member of Benesch’s Labor & Employment Practice Group.
Adam Primm at aprimm@beneschlaw.com or 216.363.4451.
Latest News
U.S. Trade Fraud Task Force Surpasses $1 Billion in Recoveries, Signaling Heightened Customs Enforcement
The Department of Justice (DOJ) announced a new inter-agency Trade Fraud Task Force (“Task Force”), designed to “aggressively pursue enforcement actions against any parties who seek to evade tariffs and other duties” and those who attempt to import prohibited goods following the DOJ’s identification of trade and customs fraud as a priority for prosecution.
Major Shift in Federal Labor Board’s Position on Restrictive Covenants
Non-compete agreements are no longer considered presumptively illegal under federal labor law. On June 26, 2026, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) released advice memoranda signaling this dramatic change in how the federal government views non-compete agreements in the workplace. This is welcome news for employers who use non-competes and similar restrictive covenants to protect their businesses.
Course of Performance as Contract Amendment or Waiver: When Business Practices Overrides Paper Terms
Imagine you are a leading manufacturing company, and you purchase a critical widget from a supplier. You have a carefully negotiated contract in place—one that spells out specific pricing, delivery timelines, and product specifications for those widgets.
California AG’s Carbon Health Settlement Raises the Stakes for MSO-PC Structures and Continuity Planning in California
The California Attorney General’s June 2026 settlement with Carbon Health marks the first-of-its kind resolution of an enforcement action directly targeting an MSO-PC structure under California’s corporate practice of medicine (“CPOM”) doctrine.