A federal judge in Texas has issued an injunction against the Biden’s Administration vaccine mandate, halting all related suspensions and terminations.
Complimentary Webinars:
An Executive Order, signed by the president in September, created a mandate for feds to get a COVID-19 vaccine. Agencies were to suspend, and ultimately fire, federal workers who refused to comply, having until November 22nd of last year to fulfill the inoculation requirement or request an exemption. Such punitive measures have been indefinitely halted by the determination of a federal court in Texas. A federal judge issued an injunction, ruling the executive order unlawful at the end of January. The Biden Administration’s Justice Department appealed the ruling, but it was upheld by the appellate court on February 9th. It is possible that the case could go to the Supreme Court for a final decision, but with 98% of the federal workforce currently compliant with the vaccine mandate, either through receiving the required shots or being officially exempted, it is unlikely.
The injunction does not affect the vaccine mandate at the Department of Veteran’s Affairs (VA), however, as that agency had issued its own mandate for healthcare workers before the executive order went into effect. It is also unrelated to the mandate for federal contractors, which was blocked on December 7th by a federal court in Georgia. The Biden administration is appealing that case well, but its request for an expedited review was denied by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, so it is still on hold.
Bill Introduced Regarding Mandate
The Republican Representative Diana Harshbarger of Tennessee introduced a bill in Congress on February 22nd. The Protecting Americans’ Medical Rights Act would allow federal workers, who were subject to adverse effects from the COVID vaccine, to sue the federal government for such damages. Should the bill get passed, those who experienced negative health consequences from receiving a vaccine, which they were required to receive to keep their employment, would be allowed to seek remedies for their grievances.
--
Until Next Time,
The information has been obtained from sources considered reliable but we do not guarantee that the foregoing material is accurate or complete. Any opinions are those of Serving Those Who Serve writers and not necessarily those of RJFS or Raymond James. Any information is not a complete summary or statement of all available data necessary for making an investment decision and does not constitute a recommendation. Investing involves risk and you may incur a profit or loss regardless of strategy suggested. Every investor’s situation is unique and you should consider your investment goals, risk tolerance, and time horizon before making any investment or financial decision. Prior to making an investment decision, please consult with your financial advisor about your individual situation. While we are familiar with the tax provisions of the issues presented herein, as Financial Advisors of RJFS, we are not qualified to render advice on tax or legal matters. You should discuss tax or legal matters with the appropriate professional. **
