The judge said the President had exceeded his authority under the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act in issuing the requirement. “While the statute grants to the president great discretion, it strains credulity that Congress intended the FPASA, a procurement statute, to be the basis for promulgating a public health measure such as mandatory vaccination,” the judge said.
He also said he was “concerned that the vaccine mandate intrudes on an area that is traditionally reserved to the States.”
The judge’s opinion stressed that the case was not about whether vaccines are effective or whether the government can require them in certain circumstances. It included only a limited discussion of why the public interest in halting the mandate outweighed keeping it in force while it was more fully litigated.
“Plaintiff agencies and contractors are now having to make tough choices about whether they will choose to comply with the vaccine mandate or lose out on future federal government contracts,” the judge said.
Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost, who joined his counterparts in Kentucky and Tennessee in bringing the case, said in a statement after the order came down that “this is not about vaccines, it’s about the mandates.”
“The judge’s opinion clearly states that and it has been our position all along that the president cannot impose these mandates on the people,” Yost said.