The Protean Procurement Act
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5195/lawreview.2025.1087Abstract
In 2020, we confronted a global pandemic that killed hundreds of thousands of Americans and sent many more to the hospital. The effects of COVID were far-reaching: effects we continue to deal with today. The government, specifically government procurement, was not immune to these ramifications.
When government contractors succumbed to COVID, they found themselves no longer able to perform timely or at all. These delays not only cost the federal government money, but they also disrupted necessary government supplies and services. We needed a solution, and we needed one fast.
President Biden sought to remedy this problem with an executive order under the Procurement Act. That executive order, known as the contractor vaccine mandate, directed certain federal government contractors to require employee vaccinations. President Biden was on firm ground given that past administrations from both parties have used the Procurement Act’s broad authority to enact all sorts of policies. Contractors—mainly in conservative states—cried foul and sued the Biden administration for injunctive relief.
What followed was litigation in mostly far-right circuits that enjoined the executive order, holding that it did not satisfy the quintessential “close nexus test.” On the surface, these cases appear to be merely an exercise of statutory interpretation. But a closer examination of these cases reveals much more about the future of the standing doctrine, the purported rationale behind the major questions doctrine, the appropriateness of nationwide injunctions, and separation of powers concerns between the executive and judicial branches.
This Article explores these topics under the lens of Procurement Act litigation and explains why these courts erred on several issues. It suggests that the courts’ standing analyses—premised on a misunderstanding of federal procurement law—threaten to erode whatever remains of the standing doctrine. Further, it contends that the courts’ reliance on the major questions doctrine underscores fallacies with the doctrine’s purported rationale. This Article also offers a revised approach to the close nexus test that combines a variety of approaches to balance the competing separation of powers concerns while preserving executive flexibility over government procurement.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Justin C. Van Orsdol
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- The Author retains copyright in the Work, where the term “Work” shall include all digital objects that may result in subsequent electronic publication or distribution.
- Upon acceptance of the Work, the author shall grant to the Publisher the right of first publication of the Work.
- The Author shall grant to the Publisher and its agents the nonexclusive perpetual right and license to publish, archive, and make accessible the Work in whole or in part in all forms of media now or hereafter known under a Creative Commons 4.0 License (Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works), or its equivalent, which, for the avoidance of doubt, allows others to copy, distribute, and transmit the Work under the following conditions:
- Attribution—other users must attribute the Work in the manner specified by the author as indicated on the journal Web site;
- Noncommercial—other users (including Publisher) may not use this Work for commercial purposes;
- No Derivative Works—other users (including Publisher) may not alter, transform, or build upon this Work,with the understanding that any of the above conditions can be waived with permission from the Author and that where the Work or any of its elements is in the public domain under applicable law, that status is in no way affected by the license.
- The Author is able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the nonexclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the Work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), as long as there is provided in the document an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post online a pre-publication manuscript (but not the Publisher’s final formatted PDF version of the Work) in institutional repositories or on their Websites prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work. Any such posting made before acceptance and publication of the Work shall be updated upon publication to include a reference to the Publisher-assigned DOI (Digital Object Identifier) and a link to the online abstract for the final published Work in the Journal.
- Upon Publisher’s request, the Author agrees to furnish promptly to Publisher, at the Author’s own expense, written evidence of the permissions, licenses, and consents for use of third-party material included within the Work, except as determined by Publisher to be covered by the principles of Fair Use.
- The Author represents and warrants that:
- the Work is the Author’s original work;
- the Author has not transferred, and will not transfer, exclusive rights in the Work to any third party;
- the Work is not pending review or under consideration by another publisher;
- the Work has not previously been published;
- the Work contains no misrepresentation or infringement of the Work or property of other authors or third parties; and
- the Work contains no libel, invasion of privacy, or other unlawful matter.
- The Author agrees to indemnify and hold Publisher harmless from Author’s breach of the representations and warranties contained in Paragraph 6 above, as well as any claim or proceeding relating to Publisher’s use and publication of any content contained in the Work, including third-party content.
