Texas Federal Judge Blocks Brandon From Enforcing Federal Vaxnation Mandate

I listened to Fauci, Stephane Bancel (Moderna), Annalies Wilder-Smith, and Richard Hatchett discuss the future of covid at Klaus Schwab's WEF yesterday. Here are my notes. 🧵1/https://t.co/NvyMBrlzfy

— Laura (@_Iaura_) January 18, 2022

courtlistener | The plaintiffs have moved the court to preliminarily enjoin the enforcement of two executive orders by the President. The first, Executive Order 14042, is already the subject of a nationwide injunction. Because that injunction protects the plaintiffs from imminent harm, the court declines to enjoin the first order. The second, Executive Order 14043, amounts to a presidential mandate that all federal employees consent to vaccination against COVID-19 or lose their jobs. Because the President’s authority is not that broad, the court will enjoin the second order’s enforcement.

The court notes at the outset that this case is not about whether folks should get vaccinated against COVID-19—the court believes they should. It is not even about the federal government’s power, exercised properly, to mandate vaccination of its employees. It is instead about whether the President can, with the stroke of a pen and without the input of Congress, require millions of federal employees to undergo a medical procedure as a condition of their employment. That, under the current state of the law as just recently expressed by the Supreme Court, is a bridge too far.