46 F.4th 1283
11th Cir.2022Background
- President Biden issued Executive Order 14042 directing agencies to include Safer Federal Workforce Task Force workplace-safety clauses in covered contracts; Task Force guidance required COVID‑19 vaccination for covered contractor employees (with limited accommodations).
- Seven States (GA, AL, ID, KS, SC, UT, WV) and Associated Builders and Contractors sued, seeking declaratory relief and a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the contractor vaccine mandate.
- The district court granted a nationwide preliminary injunction, finding plaintiffs likely to succeed on the claim that the Procurement Act did not authorize the mandate and that plaintiffs would suffer irreparable harm.
- On appeal the Eleventh Circuit agreed plaintiffs were likely to prevail on the Procurement Act claim and that irreparable harm and balance-of-equities supported preliminary relief, but held the district court abused its discretion by issuing an overly broad nationwide injunction.
- The Eleventh Circuit limited the injunction: agencies may not enforce the mandate against the plaintiff States and intervenor members, and may not consider mandate‑compliance when awarding contracts if a plaintiff is among the bidders; the court vacated the injunction to the extent it barred enforcement against nonparties.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Procurement Act authorizes the President to impose a government‑wide contractor COVID‑19 vaccination requirement | §121 is limited: President may only direct subordinate officials to carry out the specific subtitle; no grant to mandate baseline health requirements across all procurements | §121 read with §101 (purpose) authorizes the President to prescribe policies that ensure an economical and efficient procurement system, including measures that reduce contractor absenteeism | Court: Plaintiffs likely to succeed; Procurement Act does not clearly authorize the across‑the‑board vaccine mandate (President exceeded authority) |
| Whether plaintiffs showed irreparable harm absent an injunction | Compliance costs, lost employees, tracking/implementation expenses are unrecoverable and threaten viability — irreparable injury | Such compliance costs are ordinary and recoverable; no irreparable injury | Court: District court did not abuse discretion — irreparable harm shown |
| Whether the national injunction was proper in scope | Nationwide relief was necessary to protect plaintiffs and their members who work across multiple states | Nationwide injunction is overbroad; relief should be limited to parties and necessary circumstances | Court: Nationwide injunction was overbroad; vacated as to nonparties and limited remedy to plaintiffs and solicitations where a plaintiff is a bidder |
| Whether the major‑questions / clear‑statement principles apply to limit the Procurement Act delegation | Major‑questions doctrine requires clear congressional authorization for extraordinary exercises of power; none exists here | Longstanding Executive practice and the statute’s broad language and purpose suffice; proprietary role supports authority | Court: Applied clear‑statement/major‑questions reasoning as part of statutory interpretation and found no clear congressional authorization for this sweeping mandate |
Key Cases Cited
- Perkins v. Lukens Steel Co., 310 U.S. 113 (1940) (government’s proprietor power to select contracting terms but Congress controls scope of delegation)
- Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441 U.S. 281 (1979) (Procurement Act does not plainly authorize matters beyond specific statutory provisions; courts should look for a specific statutory basis)
- AFL‑CIO v. Kahn, 618 F.2d 784 (D.C. Cir. 1979) (applying a nexus test under the Procurement Act but cautioning against a blank check delegation)
- Util. Air Regul. Grp. v. EPA, 573 U.S. 302 (2014) (major‑questions/clear statement principle applied to limits on regulatory authority)
- West Virginia v. EPA, 142 S. Ct. 2587 (2022) (requiring clear congressional authorization for exercises of vast economic and political significance)
- Nat’l Fed’n of Indep. Bus. v. OSHA, 142 S. Ct. 661 (2022) (characterizing broad public‑health workplace mandates as non‑ordinary and requiring clear statutory authority)
- Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) (historical recognition that vaccination mandates may be constitutionally permissible)