CORONA Appeals Court: Biden’s Vaccine Mandate on Federal Employees Illegal

Macgyver

Has No Life - Lives on TB
I thought this was already a dead issue (no vax pun intended)


Appeals Court: Biden’s Vaccine Mandate on Federal Employees Illegal
Ken Klukowski
6 - 8 minutes

President Joe Biden’s coronavirus vaccine mandate is illegal under federal law, the Fifth Circuit federal appeals court held Thursday in a major defeat for the Biden administration.

Biden issued Executive Order 14043 on September 9, 2021, requiring 4.2 million federal employees to get a Covid vaccine as a condition for continued employment by the federal government. He claimed he had this authority under the Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA) as part of determining “workplace conditions” for employees, and that he also had inherent power under Article II of the Constitution to require federal employees to get the jab.

A nonprofit group named Feds for Medical Freedom sued on behalf of its 6,000 members who are federal employees, joined by other groups and individual plaintiffs, all arguing that the president has no such authority, and seeking a preliminary injunction to block the mandate while the case plays out in court. They are represented by Boyden Gray & Associates, a boutique law firm led by famed lawyer Boyden Gray, who served as White House counsel under President George H.W. Bush and is also a former U.S. ambassador. Several lawyers from the Trump administration who now work at his firm, Jonathan Berry, Michael Buschbacher, and Trent McCotter led the challenge.

Judge Jeffrey Brown of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas agreed with the challengers, holding the president lacked this authority. Noting that the 6,000 employees and other plaintiffs were scattered nationwide amongst virtually every federal agency, he issued a preliminary injunction blocking Biden’s vaccine mandate nationwide.

A demonstrator holds a sign reading "End All Mandates" as people gather for a rally with truckers at the start of "The Peoples Convoy" protest against Covid-19 vaccine and mask mandates in Adelanto, California, on February 23, 2022. - The convoy is headed for Washington, DC, and is expected to arrive on March 5.

A demonstrator holds a sign reading “End All Mandates” as people gather for a rally with truckers at the start of “The Peoples Convoy” protest against Covid-19 vaccine and government mandates in Adelanto, California, on February 23, 2022. (Getty)

The Justice Department appeals, and a 3-judge panel mostly made of the few liberal judges on the Fifth Circuit – which overall is the most conservative federal appeals court in the country – held that federal courts lack jurisdiction to decide CSRA disputes like this one, dissolving the injunction without commenting on the legal merits.

But then the full Fifth Circuit voted to rehear the case en banc, meaning that all the judges on the court will hear the case together – which is 17 judges, but was 16 judges at the time due to a vacancy – setting aside the 3-judge panel’s decision, and thereby reinstating Judge Brown’s injunction while the appeal was being decided.

The full en banc Fifth Circuit handed down its decision Thursday, with Judge Andrew Oldham writing the majority opinion for what is essentially a 10-6 decision, although some judges split on other issues highlighted in separate opinions.

Oldham thoroughly explained why federal courts do indeed have jurisdiction over this challenge, winding carefully through very technical arguments as to why this is not left in the hands of the board that hears CSRA complaints.

Turning to the merits of the legal challenge, Oldham wrote for the 10-judge majority, “we need not repeat the district court’s reasoning, with which we substantially agree.”

That district court opinion by Brown had reasoned that CSRA “authorizes the President to regulate the workplace conduct of executive-branch employees, but not their conduct in general.”

Biden Orders Vax Mandates: "This is Not About Freedom or Personal Choice" pic.twitter.com/HoDwTqLbyG

— Breitbart News (@BreitbartNews) September 10, 2021

“Applying that same logic to the President’s authority under [the CSRA], he cannot require civilian federal employees to submit to the vaccine as a condition of employment,” Brown added.

Brown also rejected the argument that Article II of the Constitution gives the president inherent power to require vaccines, reasoning that “the government points to no example of a previous chief executive invoking the power to impose medical procedures on civilian federal employees.”

Judge James Ho joined Judge Oldham’s opinion in full, adding a concurring opinion joined by Judge Edith Jones, making the point that the CSRA might be unconstitutional, and pointing out how for decades many federal employees disregard the directions of the elected president under which they serve, because under the CSRA it is very difficult to fire a federal employee.

Quoting several scholars, Ho writes:

What’s more, federal employees know it—and they take full-throated advantage of it. As anyone who has ever held a senior position in the Executive Branch can attest, federal employees often regard themselves, not as subordinates duty-bound to carry out the President’s vision whether they personally agree with it or not, but as a free-standing interest group entitled to make demands on their superiors. As a result, Presidents can have a hard time implementing their agenda if civil servants collectively drag their feet or lack the competence to carry out the President’s orders.

Ho continued, quoting one prominent professor:

Indeed, one scholar has pointedly noted that the single biggest obstacle for any President is not the separation of powers designed by our Founders, but the millions of federal employees who are supposed to work for him. These employees can drag their feet, leak to the press, threaten to resign and employ other tactics to undermine [a President’s] initiatives if they object to them. They’re also hard to fire, thanks to Civil Service protections.

However, Ho noted that Biden was not challenging the constitutionality of CSRA, and therefore this case is not an appropriate vehicle for determining if presidents always have authority to fire subordinates who refuse to follow the president’s directions.

The case now goes back to Brown’s courtroom for additional proceedings, including determining whether the injunction would continue to block the mandate nationwide, or be limited to the 6,000 members represented in the case.

The Justice Department also has the option of petitioning the Supreme Court to review the Fifth Circuit’s decision.

The case is Feds for Medical Freedom v. Biden, No. 22-40043 in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

Breitbart News senior legal contributor Ken Klukowski is a lawyer who served in the White House and Justice Department.
 

Knoxville's Joker

Has No Life - Lives on TB
There are crap tons of suits like this making their paces.

I am not so sure the unintended consequence is that they will end up dismantling the public health protocols established before vaccines existed.
 

Melodi

Disaster Cat
Having been a US Federal Employee, I can point out from experience it isn't so much that "thousands" of employees are "against" the President. They have to work under "established" rules and regulations (often passed by a previous congress) that prevent them from doing whatever new-fangled thing a President may want.

And some things are just outright illegal. For example, Hillary Clinton got into terrible trouble when she tried to fire the White House Travel staff. I am guessing (I have no proof, but I saw this a lot) that she wanted them to do something they legally could do, so she tried to order them all fired. Sadly for her, they were all career (not appointed) employees assigned to the White House. She is said to have gone into a foaming rage when informed of this. The best the personnel office could do was to transfer those employees to another office and replace them with employees who probably told her the same if my suspicions were correct.

I once saw four or five of my agency's highest-ranking (and most highly paid) people face fines and possible jail time over similar allegations. That time, the employees simply turned them in, but only after earlier employees had let the fraud and illegal travel stuff go on for years.

The real problem was that US Federal Travel rules and reimbursements are always years behind reality, especially during inflation. In perfect examples of contradictory legislation, one law would mandate XYZ number of employees inspect XYZ Big City Welfare offices. Still, the travel budget didn't allow for any hotel 150 miles from the city (no hotels or motels existed for the amounts of the stipends) and food budgets that wouldn't buy two meals a day at a grocery store. My manager spent many hours every month, along with his manager writing "justifications," forgetting or spending extra money legally to fulfill the department's legal obligations.

So it is a lot more complicated than the above article wants it to look like. Though it is also true, civil servants do tend to say about some of the more "difficult" appointed agency heads: "we were here before you got here, and we will still be here after you leave." That isn't the entire story.
 

Knoxville's Joker

Has No Life - Lives on TB
Having been a US Federal Employee, I can point out from experience it isn't so much that "thousands" of employees are "against" the President. They have to work under "established" rules and regulations (often passed by a previous congress) that prevent them from doing whatever new-fangled thing a President may want.

And some things are just outright illegal. For example, Hillary Clinton got into terrible trouble when she tried to fire the White House Travel staff. I am guessing (I have no proof, but I saw this a lot) that she wanted them to do something they legally could do, so she tried to order them all fired. Sadly for her, they were all career (not appointed) employees assigned to the White House. She is said to have gone into a foaming rage when informed of this. The best the personnel office could do was to transfer those employees to another office and replace them with employees who probably told her the same if my suspicions were correct.

I once saw four or five of my agency's highest-ranking (and most highly paid) people face fines and possible jail time over similar allegations. That time, the employees simply turned them in, but only after earlier employees had let the fraud and illegal travel stuff go on for years.

The real problem was that US Federal Travel rules and reimbursements are always years behind reality, especially during inflation. In perfect examples of contradictory legislation, one law would mandate XYZ number of employees inspect XYZ Big City Welfare offices. Still, the travel budget didn't allow for any hotel 150 miles from the city (no hotels or motels existed for the amounts of the stipends) and food budgets that wouldn't buy two meals a day at a grocery store. My manager spent many hours every month, along with his manager writing "justifications," forgetting or spending extra money legally to fulfill the department's legal obligations.

So it is a lot more complicated than the above article wants it to look like. Though it is also true, civil servants do tend to say about some of the more "difficult" appointed agency heads: "we were here before you got here, and we will still be here after you leave." That isn't the entire story.
But the other aspect is that some of them buck the system to appease certain folks. Others buck the system to spite certain folks.
 

Melodi

Disaster Cat
But the other aspect is that some of them buck the system to appease certain folks. Others buck the system to spite certain folks.
That is true, but most of the time it is a lot more complicated than that. But then, I also found that most of the time, they probably think most Federal Employees are "useless" and should "all be fired." Until they or their loved one needs something urgently that the XYZ department does. Then they scream at you over the telephone about how they "pay your salary, you work for them, and they are calling their Senator right now." I used to tell them to please do so; perhaps we can get more funding so we will only be six months behind in processing your claim instead of a year.

That happened to me personally more often when I worked for the State of Colorado, which was worse for those problems than the US government is. But it did happen in every office I worked in to one degree or another in civil services.
 

sy32478

Veteran Member
The fed.gov has caught up and has a detailed lookup table for each state and major city for travel, meals, lodging and incidentals for reimbursements. This is also true for other countries. Per diems also vary (downward) for meals if you were traveling for part of a day. IIRC the prices are updated annually or maybe twice a year. Haven't travelled for work since the end of 2019 so this is all from memory.

GSA Per Diem Rates
 

ShadowMan

Designated Grumpy Old Fart
iu
 
Top