Court filing
Georgia Sdga 1 21 Cv 00163 11Th 21 14269 Doc 105 Att 0
Summary
An order entered December 23, 2021 by United States District Judge R. Stan Baker in The State of Georgia, et al. v. Joseph R. Biden, Civil Action No. 1:21-cv-163, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia, Augusta Division. It summarizes a December 21, 2021 telephonic hearing and restates that the case turns on whether the Procurement Act, 40 U.S.C. § 101 et seq., authorizes Executive Order 14042. The order denies as withdrawn the defendants' requests to stay the December 7, 2021 preliminary injunction pending appeal and to narrow its scope, and reserves ruling on their request for clarification about private contractors and Safer Federal Workforce Task Force masking and distancing protocols. It sets briefing on that request for January 7, 2022 and January 14, 2022, and grants the unopposed motion to stay all other proceedings pending appeal.
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
Full text
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
AUGUSTA DIVISION
THE STATE OF GEORGIA, et al.,
Plaintiffs, CIVIL ACTION NO.: 1:21-cv-163
v.
JOSEPH R. BIDEN, in his official capacity as
President of the United States, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER
The Court held a telephonic hearing in this case on December 21, 2021. At that hearing,
the Court sought clarification from the parties regarding Defendants’ Emergency Motion for Stay
Pending Appeal and For Immediate Administrative Stay, (doc. 97), and Defendants’ Unopposed
Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Appeal, (doc. 102). The Court summarizes the hearing and
rulings on those Motions below.
First, however, the Court takes the opportunity to emphasize a portion of its December 7,
2021 Order granting Plaintiffs’ motions for a preliminary injunction, (doc. 94). As the Court stated
in that Order, this case is not a dispute over the tragic toll COVID-19 has inflicted on this nation
or the effectiveness of vaccines in stemming the spread of the virus and lessening the risk of severe
illness and death. (See id. at p. 2.) Indeed, as of December 15, 2021, a total of 800,939 COVID-
19 deaths have been reported in the United States. 1 As the American Medical Association stated
in its Amicus Curiae brief, “widespread vaccination is essential to ending the COVID-19 pandemic
and preventing thousands more needless deaths.” (Doc. 86, p. 10.) Particularly given the emerging
1
See COVID Data Tracker Weekly Review, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-
data/covidview/index.html, last visited December 22, 2021.
variants of this virus, all evidence before the Court indicates that it is in the best interest of
individuals’ health and the public’s health for those who do not have a legitimate religious or
medical exemption to obtain full vaccination against SARS-CoV-2, the causative agent of COVID-
19. However, this case is not about whether individuals should become vaccinated or even whether
the government, at some level, may mandate that some individuals must become vaccinated.
Rather, as explained in the Court’s prior Order, this case ultimately hinges on the narrow legal
question of whether the statute at issue in this case, the Federal Property and Administrative
Services Act, 40 U.S.C. § 101 et seq. (also known as “the Procurement Act”) authorizes the
President to issue Executive Order 14042. (See doc. 94, pp. 17–23.) For the reasons stated in its
prior Order, the Court has found that Plaintiffs will likely prevail in their claim that it does not. It
is also worth noting that this Court is not the only court grappling with the executive branch’s
statutory authority to issue vaccine mandates. However, many of those cases have involved
different mandates with different proffered statutory bases than the mandate and statute at issue in
this case. See, e.g., In re MCP NO. 165, No. 21-4027 et al., 2021 WL 5989357, at *1 (6th Cir.
Dec. 17, 2021); Florida v. Dep’t of Health and Human Servs, No. 21-14098-JJ, 2021 WL 5768796,
at *1 (11th Cir. Dec. 6, 2021). Those courts, like this Court, have undoubtedly sought to issue
decisions on the questions before them based not on the result the courts desire but rather the result
the law demands.
During the December 21, 2021 hearing, Defendants withdrew two of the requests contained
in their Emergency Motion for Stay Pending Appeal and For Immediate Administrative Stay, (doc.
97). Specifically, they are no longer requesting that the Court stay its December 7, 2021 Order
granting Plaintiffs’ motions for a preliminary injunction, (doc. 94), pending the completion of their
appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Additionally, Defendants
withdrew their request that the Court narrow the scope of its preliminary injunction to only apply
to their contracts with Plaintiffs (and not to those with non-parties). However, Defendants stood
2
by their request for clarification as to “whether the preliminary injuction [sic] bars private
contractors from mutually agreeing to abide by the COVID-19 workplace safeguards and whether
the injunction also bars enforcement of the masking and physical distancing protocols set forth in
the Safer Federal Workforce Task Force Guidance.” (Doc. 97, p. 2.) The parties agreed to a
briefing schedule on that remaining request. As to Defendants’ Unopposed Motion to Stay
Proceedings Pending Appeal, (doc. 102), the parties agreed that all deadlines in this case, other
than the deadlines to brief the aforementioned request for clarification, should be stayed while this
case is on appeal.
In accordance with Defendants’ representations at the hearing, the Court hereby DENIES
IN PART AND RESERVES RULING IN PART as to Defendants’ Emergency Motion for Stay
Pending Appeal and For Immediate Administrative Stay, (doc. 97). The Court DENIES AS
WITHDRAWN Defendants’ requests to stay the Court’s preliminary injunction pending appeal
and to narrow the scope of the preliminary injunction, and the Court RESERVES RULING on
Defendants’ request for clarification. Pursuant to the parties’ agreement, Plaintiffs shall respond
to Defendants’ request for clarification on or before January 7, 2022, and Defendants shall file
any reply brief on or before January 14, 2022. The Court GRANTS Defendants’ Unopposed
Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Appeal, (doc. 102). Except as to the aforementioned request
for clarification, all deadlines and proceedings in this case are STAYED until further order of the
Court.
SO ORDERED, this 23rd day of December, 2021.
R. STAN BAKER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
3
File and source
- File
- Georgia_SDGA_1-21-cv-00163_11th-21-14269__doc-105__att-0.pdf
- Size
- 138,648 bytes
- SHA-256
- 436e71d61c041b0b5d74d4ca129f6cf3a180c060c43628380eded8a161ef9fab
- Original
- storage.courtlistener.com