Sign Up

NCLA Site Search

Cases

Vanderstelt v. Biden

CASE SUMMARY

The Biden Administration enacted an unlawful executive order to compel millions of Americans working for government contractors (even if they did not perform work on government contracts) to take a COVID-19 vaccine. This mandate required Plaintiffs to take a vaccine without their consent—and in the case of those with naturally acquired immunity, against the medical advice of experts—thereby depriving them of their constitutional right to bodily integrity and to refuse unwanted medical care and violating their statutory right to informed consent.

On September 9, 2021, the Biden Administration announced several new administrative actions aimed at coercing a total of 100 million Americans to receive a COVID-19 vaccine. In addition to private employer, healthcare facility, and federal employee mandates, the announcement covered those working for federal contractors. The federal contractor mandate was prohibited by judicial orders in the U.S. District Courts for the Eastern District of Kentucky and Southern District of Georgia.

The President could not exercise authority this sweeping under the guise of “procurement” in the absence of clear and explicit congressional authorization. The attempt to control the personal health decisions of Americans through general procurement authority is a question of deep economic and political significance. Congress did not provide—nor does the Procurement Act allow—the President to have such power. Presidential policies prescribed under the Procurement Act are valid only if there is a “nexus between the regulations and some delegation of requisite legislative authority by Congress.” There was no nexus here.

Additionally, under the unconstitutional conditions doctrine, the government could not impair Plaintiffs’ right to refuse medical care through subtle forms of coercion any more than it could through an explicit mandate.

OUR TEAM

Sheng Li
Litigation Counsel
Jenin Younes
Litigation Counsel
John J. Vecchione
Senior Litigation Counsel

RELEVANT MATERIALS

NCLA FILINGS

Opinion and Order Granting Motion To Dismiss

October 20, 2023 | Read More

Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss

August 23, 2023 | Read More

Brief in Support of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss

July 12, 2023 | Read More

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive, and Other Relief

January 4, 2022 | Read More

PRESS RELEASES

NCLA Decries Govt Effort to Moot Suit Against Biden’s Illegal Federal Contractor Vaccine Mandate

August 23, 2023 | Read More

NCLA Files Class-Action Lawsuit to Block Biden’s Unlawful Federal Contractor Vaccine Mandate

January 4, 2022 | Read More

RELATED CASES
  • Adir International v. Starr Indemnity and Liability Company

    Due Process Violations

    The due process of law guarantees a right to be held to account only through the processes of an impartial court—something administrative tribunals violate every day.

    Case Closed -

    Agencies: California

    View Case
  • American Home Furnishings Alliance, et al. v. U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission

    Due Process Violations

    The due process of law guarantees a right to be held to account only through the processes of an impartial court—something administrative tribunals violate every day.

    Scope of Authority / Nondelegation

    The structure of the Constitution allows only Congress to legislate, only the Executive to enforce laws, and only the Judiciary to decide cases. But the Administrative State evades the Constitution’s avenues of governance when executive agencies issue regulations without statutory authorization from Congress.

    Case Closed - June 30, 2023

    Agencies: Consumer Product Safety Commission

    View Case
  • American Honda Motor Co., Inc. v. Walther, Dir., and Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration

    Judicial Deference

    Deference doctrines require judges to defer to an administrative agency’s fact finding, or its interpretation of statutes and regulations. Thus, judges surrender their independent judgment and, where the government is a party, must exhibit systematic bias in the government’s favor, which denies due process of law to the other litigant.

    Due Process Violations

    The due process of law guarantees a right to be held to account only through the processes of an impartial court—something administrative tribunals violate every day.

    Case Closed -

    Agencies: Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration

    View Case
  • American Hospital Association, et al. v. Xavier Becerra, et al.

    Judicial Deference

    Deference doctrines require judges to defer to an administrative agency’s fact finding, or its interpretation of statutes and regulations. Thus, judges surrender their independent judgment and, where the government is a party, must exhibit systematic bias in the government’s favor, which denies due process of law to the other litigant.

    Due Process Violations

    The due process of law guarantees a right to be held to account only through the processes of an impartial court—something administrative tribunals violate every day.

    Scope of Authority / Nondelegation

    The structure of the Constitution allows only Congress to legislate, only the Executive to enforce laws, and only the Judiciary to decide cases. But the Administrative State evades the Constitution’s avenues of governance when executive agencies issue regulations without statutory authorization from Congress.

    Case Closed - June 15, 2022

    Agencies: Department of Health and Human Services

    View Case
  • American Securities Association and Citadel Securities LLC v. United States Securities and Exchange Commission

    Due Process Violations

    The due process of law guarantees a right to be held to account only through the processes of an impartial court—something administrative tribunals violate every day.

    Scope of Authority / Nondelegation

    The structure of the Constitution allows only Congress to legislate, only the Executive to enforce laws, and only the Judiciary to decide cases. But the Administrative State evades the Constitution’s avenues of governance when executive agencies issue regulations without statutory authorization from Congress.

    Administrative Speech Controls

    The Administrative State tries to squelch speech, especially through licensing, speech bans, and speech mandates. Licensing requires one to get the government’s permission prior to speaking. Nothing was more clearly forbidden by the First Amendment than prior restraints on speech, but such controls are now commonplace.

    Unreasonable Searches

    The Fourth Amendment forbids warrantless searches and seizures of information, yet the Administrative State violates this right to privacy through administrative subpoenas and warrants, automated information collection devices, civil investigative demands, and “voluntary” requests for information.

    Conditions on Spending

    Administrative agencies use unconstitutional conditions on spending to regulate the conduct of grantees. Rather than rule through law, the government simply purchases submission.

    Case Active - February 15, 2024

    Agencies: Securities and Exchange Commission

    View Case
  • AMG Capital Management, LLC v. FTC and FTC v. Credit Bureau Center, LLC

    Due Process Violations

    The due process of law guarantees a right to be held to account only through the processes of an impartial court—something administrative tribunals violate every day.

    Scope of Authority / Nondelegation

    The structure of the Constitution allows only Congress to legislate, only the Executive to enforce laws, and only the Judiciary to decide cases. But the Administrative State evades the Constitution’s avenues of governance when executive agencies issue regulations without statutory authorization from Congress.

    Case Closed -

    Agencies: Federal Trade Commission

    View Case

SHARE THIS CASE

Enter your email address above to be notified whenever we post a new document to this case.