581 F.Supp.3d 826
S.D. Tex.2022Background
- Plaintiffs (Feds for Medical Freedom, Local 918, and individuals) seek a preliminary injunction against two Biden executive orders: EO 14042 (federal contractors) and EO 14043 (federal-employee vaccination mandate). EO 14042 was already subject to a nationwide injunction, so the court did not readdress it.
- EO 14043 requires nearly all civilian federal employees to be vaccinated against COVID-19 (with medical or religious exemptions) or face discipline, including termination; enforcement was imminent when the suit was filed.
- Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction; the government argued the Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA) and ripeness doctrines barred pre-enforcement review.
- The court found it had jurisdiction: the CSRA does not bar pre-enforcement facial challenges to a government-wide policy that forces employees to choose between job and an unwanted medical procedure, and some plaintiffs face an actual and imminent threat of discipline.
- On the merits, the court concluded the President lacked statutory and constitutional authority to impose EO 14043 as written (applying Supreme Court reasoning in NFIB about limits on workplace-authority) and that less-restrictive alternatives existed; it granted a nationwide preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of EO 14043 (against all defendants except the President) and required no bond.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CSRA precludes district-court pre-enforcement review | CSRA doesn't cover pre-enforcement facial challenges to agency-wide mandates; meaningful review requires ability to litigate before risking termination | CSRA provides exclusive review for federal-employment disputes and applies here | CSRA does not bar these claims; court has jurisdiction over pre-enforcement challenge |
| Ripeness of plaintiffs' claims | Many plaintiffs refuse exemptions and face imminent discipline; harms are actual and imminent | Plaintiffs should await administrative process; no actual adverse action yet | Some plaintiffs face likely imminent discipline; claims are ripe for preliminary relief |
| Statutory/constitutional authority for EO 14043 | No statute authorizes a broad vaccine-for-employment mandate; §7301 authorizes only workplace conduct regulation, not sweeping personal-status mandates | President has inherent Article II authority over executive-branch employment and can prescribe conduct | EO 14043 exceeds statutory and constitutional authority; President lacked power to impose mandate as framed |
| APA reviewability of executive-order implementation | Agencies’ implementation could be arbitrary and capricious and reviewable | Executive orders are not reviewable under the APA; Franklin v. Massachusetts limits APA review of orders | Franklin bars APA review of the executive order itself; only discrete agency discretionary actions (e.g., exemption denials) would be APA-reviewable |
| Balance of equities and public interest | Job-loss-or-vaccinate choice causes irreparable liberty and employment harms; less restrictive measures exist | Government interest in pandemic control and protecting public health | Equities and public interest favor injunction given high federal vaccination rates and availability of less-restrictive alternatives |
Key Cases Cited
- Nat'l Fed'n of Indep. Bus. v. OSHA, 595 U.S. _ (2022) (Supreme Court limited agency power to impose broad COVID-19 vaccine-or-test workplace rules)
- Biden v. Missouri, 595 U.S. _ (2022) (Supreme Court upheld CMS vaccination mandate for healthcare facilities)
- Elgin v. Dep't of Treasury, 567 U.S. 1 (2012) (CSRA review scheme and requirement of meaningful review for federal employees)
- BST Holdings, L.L.C. v. OSHA, 17 F.4th 604 (5th Cir. 2021) (Fifth Circuit recognized job-or-jab choice can constitute irreparable injury)
- Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (standard for preliminary injunctions)
- Franklin v. Massachusetts, 505 U.S. 788 (1992) (executive orders generally not subject to APA review)
- Free Enterprise Fund v. PCAOB, 561 U.S. 477 (2010) (limits on Article II powers and review of officer actions)
- Serv. Emps. Int'l Union Local 200 United v. Trump, 975 F.3d 150 (2d Cir. 2020) (scope of executive authority over executive-branch employment policies)