Federal Government Will Not Enforce the Contractor Vaccine Mandate Absent Further Notice
Client Alert | 1 min read | 09.01.22
On August 31, 2022, the Safer Federal Workforce Task Force announced that the Federal Government “will take no action to implement or enforce Executive Order 14042,” the contractor vaccine mandate, “to ensure compliance with an applicable preliminary nationwide injunction, which may be supplemented, modified, or vacated, depending on the course of ongoing litigation.”
This announcement follows the decision issued on August 26, 2022 by the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit to limit the scope of the nationwide injunction issued by the District Court in Georgia v. Biden, S.D. Ga., 1:21-cv-163. Specifically, the Eleventh Circuit limited the nationwide injunction to the parties in Georgia, which include seven states and their agencies (Georgia, Alabama, Idaho, Kansas, South Carolina, Utah, and West Virginia), as well as members of the Associated Builders and Contractors.
In light of this announcement, federal contractors should expect that the FAR clause implementing the requirements of the Executive Order will not be included in future solicitations and contracts, and the Federal Government will not take any action to enforce the clause where it has already been included in contracts or contract-like instruments, absent further written notice from the agency.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.12.25
Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality
On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument.
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.11.25
Director Squires Revamps the Workings of the U.S. Patent Office
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.10.25
Creativity You Can Use: CJEU Clarifies Copyright for Applied Art
Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.10.25
Federal Court Strikes Down Interior Order Suspending Wind Energy Development
