CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY, et al.
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
JOSEPH R. BIDEN, in his official capacity as President of the United States of America, et al.,
Defendants-Appellants.
   No. 21-6147
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky at Frankfort.
3:21-cv-00055—Gregory F. Van Tatenhove, District Judge.
Argued: July 21, 2022
Decided and Filed: January 12, 2023
Before: SILER, McKEAGUE, and LARSEN, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

LARSEN, Circuit Judge. A fundamental tenet of our constitutional order is that the President’s authority “must stem either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself.” Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 585 (1952). The critical question in this case is whether the President heeded this rule when he ordered all federal agencies to include in their new contracts a provision obligating contract recipients to require their employees to wear face masks at work and be vaccinated against COVID-19. The President has claimed no inherent constitutional power here; instead, he maintains that the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 authorized his order. The district court and a motions panel of this court concluded that the President likely exceeded his powers under that Act. We agree. We therefore affirm the district court’s decision to preliminarily enjoin the federal government from enforcing the mandate, but we modify the scope of the injunction.