State of Missouri v. Biden, 576 F.Supp.3d 622

President Biden issued EO 14,042 directing the Safer Federal Workforce Task Force to promulgate COVID-19 safety guidance; the Task Force issued guidance requiring COVID-19 vaccination, masking, and distancing for employees of covered federal contractors and subcontractors.
OMB and the FAR Council took steps to implement the guidance (OMB determinations; FAR Council memorandum and agency-specific class deviations pending a government-wide rulemaking).
Ten States (MO, NE, AK, AR, IA, MT, NH, ND, SD, WY) sued to enjoin enforcement, alleging violations of the FPASA, the APA, the Constitution (federalism/Tenth Amendment), and procurement law; they moved for a preliminary injunction.
The court found standing for Missouri, Wyoming, and Iowa as federal contractors (Missouri also had sovereign-interest standing); it rejected parens patriae standing for the States.
The court granted a preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of the contractor vaccine mandate in the ten plaintiff States, concluding plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their FPASA claim and would suffer irreparable harm; the injunction is limited to the plaintiff States and their covered contracts.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing to sue	States (as sovereigns and contractors) are injured by preemption and loss of contracts	Gov argues lack of parens patriae, insufficient contractor-specific proof for most States	Standing: MO, WY, IA have contractor standing; parens patriae rejected; MO has sovereign standing
Authority under FPASA	EO 14,042 exceeds FPASA because vaccine mandate lacks a sufficiently close nexus to "economy and efficiency" in procurement and reaches public-health regulation beyond past uses	FPASA grants broad procurement authority; EO shows nexus (reduce absences, costs); longstanding practice supports delegation	Held: Plaintiffs likely to succeed — mandate likely exceeds FPASA authority
Spending Clause / Tenth Amendment / Federalism	Mandate usurps state police powers and is not a valid Spending Clause condition	Mandate is a valid exercise tied to procurement/Spending Clause and doesn’t commandeer states	Held: Plaintiffs are unlikely to succeed on Spending Clause or Tenth Amendment claims
Irreparable harm, balance of equities, public interest	States will suffer irreparable proprietary harms (compliance costs, workforce loss); public-interest and harms favor injunction when federal action likely unlawful	Government: injunction would impede public-health measures and contractor efficiency	Held: Irreparable harm likely for contractors; balance and public interest tip toward preliminary injunction (status quo preserved)

Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (standard for preliminary injunction)
Dataphase Sys., Inc. v. C L Sys., Inc., 640 F.2d 109 (8th Cir. 1981) (four-factor injunction test / balancing approach)
AFL-CIO v. Kahn, 618 F.2d 784 (D.C. Cir. 1979) (scope of presidential authority under FPASA / procurement nexus)
Dames & Moore v. Regan, 453 U.S. 654 (1981) (long-continued practice and congressional acquiescence doctrine)
Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952) (limits on executive power)
Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007) (state standing principles / sovereign interests)
Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016) (concrete and particularized injury requirement for standing)
Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154 (1997) (traceability and redressability in standing)
New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992) (Tenth Amendment / limits on federal power over states)
Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009) (merging public-interest and balance-of-harms factors when government is opposing party)