Vaccination Mandate for Federal Contractors, which Applies in Most Higher Education Settings, Preempts Contrary State Laws for Now

Nov 23, 2021

Reading Time : 1 min

By: Michael J. Vernick, Marta A. Thompson, Jehanne McCullough (Consultant)

Some states have responded to the federal mandate by proposing and implementing new state laws, which prohibit vaccination requirements or make them narrower. For example, Tennessee passed SB 9014, which does not allow public postsecondary educational institutions to compel people to provide proof of vaccination if they choose not to be vaccinated for any reason. Texas’ governor Greg Abbott signed an executive order, GA-40, that created additional exceptions for employees who object to vaccination, going beyond the exceptions allowed by the federal mandate.

Actual conflicts between the federal mandate and certain state laws present a challenge for those colleges and universities caught between dueling federal and state laws. The federal mandate, of course, clearly states that it supersedes any contrary state law. Likewise, the Supremacy Clause provides a basis for colleges and universities to ignore a conflicting state law to the extent necessary to adhere to the federal mandate.

The fate of the federal mandate, however, remains uncertain. Unlike the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s emergency temporary standards on COVID-19 vaccines that apply to employers with 100 or more employees, which have been temporarily halted by the 5th Circuit, the vaccine mandate for federal contractors is, as of today, still enforceable. However, numerous states have challenged the federal mandate. At the time of publication of this post, these states include Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Florida, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming. If a nationwide preliminary injunction is granted, the federal mandate will no longer be enforceable and will not preempt contrary state laws for at least an interim period. Colleges and universities that have covered contracts with the federal government should be prepared for the possibility that the federal mandate may be halted and that they may need to comply with contrary state laws in the near future for at least some period of time.

Employers will need to carefully monitor the progress of any pending state legislation and the legal challenges to EO 14042, and be ready to make any operational adjustments caused by new laws or successful challenges to the vaccine mandate.

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

Study Guide

May 21, 2024

The U.S. Department of Education recently issued final regulations governing Title IX, the federal civil rights law prohibiting sex-based discrimination in education programs or activities—such as public or private schools, universities, local or state educational agencies, and museums—that receive federal financial assistance. These new regulations, issued on April 19, 2024, and slated to go into effect on August 1, 2024, make significant changes to the prior Title IX regulations issued in 2020. Whereas the 2020 regulations included a narrower definition of sexual harassment and focused on due process concerns, the 2024 regulations—more akin to the regulations under the Obama administration—broaden the focus of Title IX to sex-based harassment more generally.

...

Read More

Study Guide

September 27, 2023

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) recently moved forward with a controversial new policy requiring foreign subrecipients to provide, at least once per year, copies of lab notebooks, data and documentation that support research outcomes described in a progress report to the prime award recipient. The new policy is in direct response to recent audits conducted by the Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General (DHHS OIG) and the Government Accountability Office (GAO), each of which raised concerns about NIH’s oversight of funds provided to, among other institutions, the Wuhan Institute of Virology. More generally, the new NIH policy is among the latest salvos in the government’s ongoing efforts to impose stricter security requirements on U.S. taxpayer-funded research.

Read More

...

Read More

Study Guide

August 16, 2023

On July 28, 2023, the Biden administration issued “Executive Order on Federal Research and Development in Support of Domestic Manufacturing and United States Jobs” (the “Executive Order”). How federal agencies implement certain of the Executive Order’s provisions may have a meaningful impact on the existing university, academic medical center, and independent research institution technology transfer processes. Moreover, when viewed in conjunction with other recent actions, the Executive Order is further indicia of the administration’s ongoing assessment and evaluation of the Bayh-Dole Act's technology transfer model. Universities and other research institutions should therefore continue to closely monitor technology transfer-related developments and weigh in when offered an opportunity to participate in rule-making or other legislative or regulatory processes.

Read More

...

Read More

Study Guide

August 2, 2023

Congressional Republicans are increasingly focused on ensuring that U.S. colleges and universities are properly disclosing gifts and contracts from foreign sources under Section 117 of the Higher Education Act of 1965, 20 U.S.C. §1011f (“Section 117”). The Higher Education and Workforce Development Subcommittee of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce (the “Committee”) held a hearing on July 18, 2023 titled Exposing the Dangers of the Influence of Foreign Adversaries on College Campuses, which discussed the enforcement, and even potential expansion, of Section 117.

...

Read More

Study Guide

July 5, 2023

Following the Supreme Court’s June 30, 2023 ruling determining that the Biden-Harris administration did not have authority to carry out its student debt forgiveness plan, the administration released a fact sheet detailing new actions to provide debt relief and support for student loan borrowers.

...

Read More

Study Guide

June 30, 2023

On June 29, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court released its highly anticipated decision that overturned 45 years of protection for colleges and universities considering the race of applicants in their admissions process. The Court found that the use of race-conscious admissions by the University of North Carolina and Harvard University is not constitutional.

...

Read More

Study Guide

June 30, 2023

On June 30, in Biden v. Nebraska, the Supreme Court ruled against the Biden administration’s student loan relief plan in a 6-3 decision. The plan, which was estimated to impact more than $430 billion of student loan principal, would have canceled student loan debt for more than 40 million borrowers.

...

Read More

Study Guide

March 27, 2023

H.R. 5, the Parental Bill of Rights Act, passed in the House of Representatives on Friday, March 24, 2023 by a vote of 213 – 208. Only Republicans supported the bill and five Republicans – Reps. Andy Biggs, Ken Buck, Matt Gaetz, Mike Lawler, and Matt Rosendale – joined all House Democrats in voting against the bill.

...

Read More

© 2024 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.