Here are a few key excerpts from the decision:
As another Court that has preliminarily enjoined the same
measure at issue in this case has stated, "[t]his case is not
about whether vaccines are effective. They are." Kentucky v.
Biden, No. 3:21-cv-55, 2021 WL 5587446, at *9 (E.D. Ky. Nov. 30,
2021). Moreover, the Court acknowledges the tragic toll that the
COVID-19 pandemic has wrought throughout the nation and the globe.
However, 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. Indeed, the
United States Supreme Court has recognized that, while the public
indisputably "has a strong interest in combating the spread of
[COVID-19]," that interest does not permit the government to
"act unlawfully even in pursuit of desirable ends." Ala.
Ass'n of Realtors v. HHS, 141 S. Ct. 2485, 2490 (2021) (citing
Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 582,
585–86 (1952)). In this case, Plaintiffs will likely succeed
in their claim that the President exceeded the authorization given
to him by Congress through the Federal Property and Administrative
Services Act when issuing Executive Order 14042. Accordingly, after
due consideration of the motions, supporting briefs, responsive
briefing, and the evidence and argument presented at the hearing,1
the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the
Motion to Intervene, (doc. 48), GRANTS ABC's
Motion for Preliminary Injunction, (doc. 50), and
GRANTS Plaintiffs' Amended Motion for
Preliminary Injunction, (doc. 55).
"The Court finds that Plaintiffs have a likelihood of proving
that Congress, through the language it used, did not clearly
authorize the President to issue the kind of mandate contained in
EO 14042, as EO 14042 goes far beyond addressing administrative and
management issues in order to promote efficiency and economy in
procurement and contracting, and instead, in application, works as
a regulation of public health, which is not clearly authorized
under the Procurement Act . . . Even if, however, EO 14042 did not
trigger the specific requirement that Congress "speak
clearly" in authorizing the challenged executive action, the
Court additionally finds that Plaintiffs have a likelihood of
proving that EO 14042 does not have a sufficient nexus to the
purposes of the Procurement Act and thus does not fall within the
authority actually granted to the President in that Act.
Government contracts experts have long wondered how far the federal government can go in attaching socio-economic "strings" to the process of the government's buying construction, goods and services. While these cases are by no means the last word on this topic, they are well worth reading and following as the cases move through the appeals process. In the meantime, government contractors and subcontractors need to watch developments closely.
The case is The State of Georgia vs. Joseph R. Biden,
U.S.D.C. SD of Georgia, Civil Action No.: 1-21-cv-163.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
