A federal court voted on Thursday to reinstate Biden’s immoral, unconstitutional executive order to mandate the COVID-19 shot on federal employees.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit dismissed the injunction issued by Judge Jeffrey Vincent Brown of the Southern District Court in Texas by a 2-1 vote.
Before Judge Brown protected medical freedom and blocked Biden’s COVID-19 jab mandate on federal employees, about 3.5 million government workers faced a November 22nd deadline.
BREAKING: Federal appeals court upholds President Joe Biden’s mandate that all federal employees be vaccinated against COVID-19 – AP
— Breaking911 (@Breaking911) April 7, 2022
— Debbie McCall (@1DebbieMcCall) April 7, 2022
The Biden administration argued the federal trial court had no power to hear the dispute. The administration told the appeals court that employees were required to raise their grievance through the Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA).
The panel majority said the plaintiffs “seek to circumvent the CSRA’s exclusive review scheme” and that the court declined the “invitation.”
Federal employee disputes generally occur before the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) and then the Washington, D.C.-based Federal Circuit appeals court, the Justice Department said in its court filings.
“The injunction seriously harms the public interest by impeding efforts to reduce disruptions from COVID-19 in federal workplaces,” the government’s lawyers said in their court filings.
The White House has said more than 93% of federal employees have received at least one vaccination and 98% have been vaccinated or are seeking a religious or medical exemption.
In February, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals said they would not reinstate Biden’s COVID-19 jab mandate to federal workers.
The 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals did not explain its reasoning in the unsigned order that said the court was expediting its review of the case. The court said the Biden administration’s request to put the lower court’s ruling on hold was being “carried with the case,” signaling that the appeals court would not rule on the request until it had conducted a fuller review of the case.