GALVESTON, TX – A district court judge nominated to the bench by former President Trump in Texas has reportedly blocked the Biden administration’s COVID jab mandate as they relate to federal workers, delivering further progress on the legal conundrum that is the very concept of jab mandates in the era of COVID.
Judge Jeffrey Brown delivered the ruling on January 21st, the judge observed that the Biden administration’s executive orders imposed upon federal employees is tantamount to “a presidential mandate that all federal employees consent to vaccination against COVID-19 or lose their jobs.”
Judge Brown noted in his written opinion that “the President’s authority is not that broad, the court will enjoin the second order’s enforcement.”
What makes the mandate pertaining to federal workers different than the one attempted with private employers and OSHA is that federal employees do not have a COVID testing option – the executive ordered demanded that employees get their jab or lose their job.
Further along in Judge Brown’s decision, he wrote that this case “is not about whether folks should get vaccinated against COVID-19—the court believes they should” nor is it solely about “the federal government’s power, exercised properly, to mandate vaccination of its employees.”
Instead, Judge Brown found the case boiled down to whether the office of the president can impose medical procedures as a condition of employment by a mere “stroke of a pen” and without Congress being involved.
“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,” the judge said. That, under the current state of the law as just recently expressed by the Supreme Court, is a bridge too far.”
White House press secretary Jen Psaki has already commented on the district court judge’s ruling, claiming that the current administration feels “confident in our legal authority here” and added that any further questions on the matter should be directed toward the Justice Department.
On the same day that Judge Brown delivered his ruling, the Justice Department predictably filed an appeal to the Fifth Circuit. As with the OSHA-enforced mandate, it would not be surprising to see this case ride all the way to the Supreme Court.
Red Voice Media would like to make a point of clarification on why we do not refer to any shot related to COVID-19 as a "vaccine." According to the CDC, the definition of a vaccine necessitates that said vaccine have a lasting effect of at least one year in preventing the contraction of the virus or disease it's intended to fight. Because all of the COVID-19 shots thus far available have barely offered six months of protection, and even then not absolute, Red Voice Media has made the decision hereafter to no longer refer to the Pfizer, Moderna, or Johnson & Johnson substances as vaccinations.