Two federal appeals courts recently reached very different decisions on the ability of the President to require contractors to have their workers vaccinated against COVID 19.  The disagreement paves the way for the Supreme Court to settle the matter should, as expected, the losers in one case petition the court to hear the matter.  The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, roughly covering the mid-west, stated that contractor personnel are not government employees and that a contractor is not performing the duties of a “state actor” when performing on a government contract. (Ciraci v. J.M. Smucker’s Co.).  The Ninth Circuit, however, reversed an Arizona district court’s preliminary injunction prohibiting the implementation of the mandate, essentially finding that it did not constitute a “transformative expansion” of the president’s authority.  The state of Arizona, and the other plaintiff-appellees, will likely file a petition for a writ of certiorari for the Supreme Court to take up the case, something it will almost certainly do unless the mandate, itself, is withdrawn prior to such action.  It is highly unlikely that the government will now move to enforce the vaccine mandate.  Even though the Ninth Circuit’s ruling technically allows the administration to move forward with enforcement of the vaccine mandate in the far west, the states covered by the Ninth Circuit, injunctions remain in place in   several other parts of the country.  A patchwork implementation would be confusing and cause needless distractions.  Enforcement of the mandate will remain in abeyance until either the administration withdraws it or the Supreme Court issues a final ruling.  The latter path could take several months.  Contractors should definitely continue to watch this space.