Updated Guidance Suggests that Federal Government May Enforce Contractor Vaccine Mandate
Client Alert | 1 min read | 10.18.22
The Safer Federal Workforce Task Force issued updated guidance for federal contractors on October 14, 2022, announcing that it will reevaluate enforcement of the federal contractor vaccine mandate and safety requirements issued under Executive Order 14042. This is the first pronouncement from the Task Force after it had indicated that it would not enforce the vaccine mandate without further notice in the wake of the Eleventh Circuit’s August 26, 2022 decision limiting the scope of the injunction against implementation and enforcement of the EO 14042 contractor mandate. The mandate officially narrowing the injunction was issued on October 18.
In light of the narrowed injunction, the Task Force announced that it will not enforce the vaccine mandate unless and until (i) the Task Force issues new guidance on COVID-19 safety protocols, (ii) OMB determines that guidance would promote economic and efficiency in federal contracting, and (iii) agencies issue written notice to covered contractors in accordance with OMB guidelines. The Task Force update leaves open the possibility that agencies could include the FAR clause implementing the requirements of the Executive Order in future solicitations and contracts.
In light of this announcement, federal contractors should expect that the Federal Government will not take any action to enforce the clause implementing the EO 14042 contractor mandate 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
