Friday, January 21, 2022

List of Law Suits filed by Federal Employees regarding the "Vaccination" Mandate Executive Order

This page is mostly to keep track of the federal employee mandate cases. From what I can tell, no one is keeping a list of those cases and reporting on it is very infrequent. I also keep some track of the other sister mandates (1. Military , 2. Federal Contractor, 3. Federal Employees, 4. CMS (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services), 5. OSHA, 6. Head Start. I also have some honorable mentions at the bottom which don't involve any of the six sisters.

I. Federal Employee mandate cases
  1. Scylla, a Six-headed Beast
    Brnovich v. Biden, filed by Attorney General of Arizona, on 9-14, No. 21-1568 (D. Ariz.) ("Defendants’ imposition of vaccine mandates on U.S. citizens and lawfully employed aliens, but not on unauthorized aliens at the border or already present in the United States, constitutes discrimination on the basis of national origin and alienage in violation of the Equal Protection Clause.") See his 10-22 motion for TRO ; Order granting leave to file amended complaint and new motion for preliminary injunction 11-10; Amended Complaint;  Motion for Preliminary Injunction 11-19
  2. GREGG COSTIN, et al. v. Biden filed by Michael Yoder on 9-23 (D.C.), 1:21-cv-02484
  3. Foley v. Biden, filed by David Foley and Daniel Flickinger on 9-29 (Northern District of Texas)  4:21-cv-01098-O, See Defendant's Response, the Judge's Order, and Plaintiff's Response to that Order, and Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's Motion; Plaintiff's second motion to amend and draft amended complaint; Defendant's request for extension of time to file answer to original complaint in light of potential amendment 11-22Plaintiff's opposition to Defendant's request for extension 11-23; Defendant's Reply re extension of time 11-24; Order granting motion for extension in part 11-29; Defendant's opposition to motion for leave to amend 12-3; Plaintiff's reply to Defendant's opposition 12-6-21; Defendant's notice of supplemental authority (Order in McCray); Plaintiff's Notice of supplemental authority (Cochran v. SEC); Defendant's Second Notice of Supplemental Authority 12-23 ( Donovan v. Vance, No. 4:21-cv-5148-TOR, ECF No. 58, at 10-14 (W.D. Wa. Dec. 17, 2021); AFGE Local 501 v. Biden, No. 21-23828-CIV, ECF No. 33, at 13-18 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 22, 2021); Plaintiff's Second Notice of Supplemental Authority 12-23 (Texas v. Becerra, No. 2:21- CV-229, (N.D. Tex. Dec. 16, 2021) and Florida v. Nelson, No. 8:21-cv-2524-SDM-TGW, (M.D. Fla. Dec. 22, 2021)); Plaintiff's third notice of supplemental authority; Plaintiff's fourth notice of supplemental authority (in light of injunction in F4MF)
  4. Brass v Biden, filed pro se, 1:21-cv-02778-MEH (D. Colo.) October 15, 2021; copies of FOIA requests sent by Brass
  5. ALTSCHULD ET AL v. RAIMONDO et al  (D.C.) filed by the Federal Practice Group on 10-19,   1:2021cv02779, Defendant Response to motion for preliminary injunction ;exhibits11-3; Order denying preliminary injunction 11-8
  6. Rydie et al v. Biden et al Employee A v. Biden, filed by Jonathan Bolls on October 19, 2021 (Maryland) 8:2021cv02696, see motion for TRO; Biden response in opposition 11-12; Plaintiff Reply; Order Denying TRO 11-19
  7. Church v. Biden, filed filed by Michael Yoder on 10-24 (D.C.)1:21-cv-02815, as reported by Under Cover DC; Plaintiffs’ application for a temporary restraining order;  opposition from the DefendantsPlaintiff's Response 11-3; Memorandum Order denying preliminary injunction 11-8
  8. Smith v Biden, 1:21-cv-19457-CPO-SAK filed 10-29 (NJ); brief in support motion for injunction with exhibits; opposition to motion for injunction 11-5; Reply to motion in opposition 11-6;  Order denying injunction 11-8
  9. AFGE Local 501 et al v. Biden et al filed by Mark Berkowitz on behalf of AFGE Local 501 and Council of Prison Locals CPL 33 on 10-30 (Southern Florida) 1:21-cv-23828-JAL, Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Order denying preliminary injunction (11-15) 
  10. McCray v. Biden filed on 11-1-21; Order denying motion for TRO dismissing complaint without prejudice (12-7) 
  11. James Joseph Rodden, et al. v. Dr. Anthony Fauci, et al. filed by John J. Vecchione, Jenin Younes, and Harriet Hageman of New Civil Liberties Alliance and Robert Henneke of Texas Public Policy Foundation on November 5, 2021 (Southern District of Texas) 3:21-cv-00317; Defendant's response in opposition to motion for preliminary injunction, exhibits; Plaintiff's reply and exhibitOrder denying injunction 11-27-21
  12. Donovan v. Vance, 4:21-cv-05148 (E.D. Wash.), filed by Nathan Arnold and Simon Peter Serrano for the Silent Majority Foundation on 11-15 (one federal employee, others contractors)
  13. Payne v. Biden, filed by Reed Rubinstein for America First Legal Foundation on November 22, 2021 (D.C.)  1:21-cv-03077; Plaintiff's motion for Summary Judgment (Nov 24); Memo in support of motion for summary judgment; Defendant's motion for extension to answer MSJ; Plaintiff's opposition to Defendant's motion 12-23
  14. MacGregor & Bjerken v. Federal Agency Heads, 21-cv-142 (D. Mont.) filed on 11-17, Brief in support of TRO, filed by Chris Gallus and Abby Moscatel  Order voluntarily dismissing case 11-29
  15.  AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES COUNCIL OF PRISON LOCALS 33 and AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES LOCAL 2018 v. DIRECTOR KIRAN AHUJA, JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Attorney General MERRICK B. GARLAND and LLOYD AUSTIN, filed by Bruce L. Castor, Jr. Michael T. van der Veen on behalf of Council 33 and Local 2018 on November 23, 2021 (E.D. Pa) 2:2021cv05172
  16. Feds for Medical Freedom v. Biden et al., filed by TRENT MCCOTTER, JONATHAN BERRY,  MICHAEL BUSCHBACHER of BOYDEN GRAY & ASSOCIATES December 21, 2021  (S.D. Tx)  3:21-cv-00356, motion for injunction part 1, part 2, Order accepting Plaintiff's proposed briefing schedule; Defendants' Response in oppo to injunction; Plaintiffs' reply; Plaintiff's supplement in light of Supreme Court in OSHA and CMSTranscript of hearing (1-13-22); Defendant's Response to supplemental authority (1-18-22); Nationwide Injunction (1-21-22); Notice of appeal 
  17. VIERBUCHEN v. BIDEN, Case 0:22-cv-00001-NDF, filed 01/04/22 (Wyoming) by John Knepper and Andrew Block for America First Legal  
  18. Doe v. Austin (Feds for Medical Freedom) filed 1-14-21(M.D. Fla) by Nick Whitney, Carol A. Thompson, John J. Michaels of Federal Practice Group See covereage: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/healthcare/federal-employee-group-broadens-legal-case-against-biden-vaccine-mandate 

II. Military only (August 24, 2021 Department of Defense Mandate)
  1. Robert v. Austin, filed by Todd S. Callender and Dale Saran on 8-17 (Colorado) 1:2021cv02228, Motion for preliminary injunction 11-2, Exhibit 17, Exhibit 18
  2. Doe v. Austin, filed by Ibrahim Reyes, Brandon Johnson, and Travis Miller (Defending the Republic) on 10-6 (N.D. Fla.)  3:21-cv-01211-AW-HTC (Military only, no federal employees), see Defendant Response Memo of Defendant Response, and Plaintiff's Reply and other Reply; Order denying Preliminary Injunction (But also finding that service members can't be required to take BioNTech)
  3. Navy Seal, et al v. Biden filed by Liberty Counsel on 10-15 (Middle District of Florida) 8:21-cv-02429; Order denying prelim injunction, deferring judgment in part (military only), and ordering information about exemption requests provided on schedule (finding that accommodations process might be guise as plaintiff suggest - military only); Defendant's opposition to class action with attached affidavits of military involved in the denial accommodation process 12-3
  4. Navy Seals 1-26 et al v Biden and Austin et al, filed First Liberty associated attorneys Kelly J. Shackelford, Jeffrey C. Mateer, Hiram S. Sasser, III, David J. Hacker, Michael D. Berry, Justin Butterfield Texas, Roger Byron, Heather Gebelin Hacker, Andrew B. Stephens, and Jordan E. Pratt on November 9, 2021 (Northern District of Texas) 4:21-cv-01236-O; Amicus America First Legal Foundation;  motion for preliminary injunction 11-24; brief in support motion injunction 11-24; order denying motion for lack of notice to counsel (none filed NOA yet) and providing further instruction 11-24 ; 12-10 defendant's response to motion for injunction12-17 Plaintiff's reply  supplemental evidence 12-23 (complaint of commander re ruse process); supplemental evidence 12-24 (denial of travel authorization for medical treatment); 1-3-22 Order Enjoining
  5. ?1:21-cv-03053-UNA FRETZ v. BIDEN et al, filed 11-17-21 (info not available at this time)
  6. Abbott v. Biden, Case 6:22-cv-00003 Filed 01/04/22 (National Guard)
  7. Airforce Officer v Austin, Case 5:22-cv-00009-TES filed, 01/06/22 by Michael R. Hirsh and others with St. Thomas More Society, (M.D. Ga)
***See also this excellent memo from an Area Defense Counsel 1-19-22***

III. Federal Contractors only (Executive Order 14042)
  1. State of Texas v. Biden, filed by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton on October 29, 2021 (Southern District of Texas) 3:21-cv-00309 
  2. State of Georgia et al v. Biden, filed by representative for States of Georgia, Alabama, Idaho, Kansas, South Carolina, Utah, and West Virginia (Southern Georgia) 1:21-tc-05000  
  3. Kentucky v Biden Judge Tatenhove's order on 11-30, enjoining the federal contractor mandate in 3 states.
  4. VANDERSTELT v. Biden, filed 1:22-cv-00005 ECF No. 1, filed 01/04/22 (W. Michigan) by Sheng Li, John J. Vecchione, and Jenin Younes for New Civil Liberties Alliance (NECLA)
IV. CMS
    Louisiana v. Becerra https://laborrelated.blogspot.com/2021/12/a-good-question-raised-by-us-district.html (dec     1)
   Missouri v. Biden Judge Schelp's order on 11-29, enjoining the federal healthcare worker mandate in 10 states. 

1/13/2221A240Biden v. Missouri

V. OSHA
1/13/2221A244NFIB v. OSHA

VI. Head Start
  • December 31, 2021, Memorandum Opinion and Order issued by U.S. District Judge James Wesley Hendrix in Texas v. Becerra, Case No. 5:21-cv-00300-H, Doc. 42 (N.D. Tex) 
  • January 1, 2022, Memorandum Order issued by Judge Terry Doughty in Louisiana v. Becerra 3:21-cv-04370-TAD-KDM (Doc. 15)  


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Honorable Mentions

On the issue of the time and forum to challenge the constitutionality of laws and orders when there exists an administrative scheme
    Cochran v. Security and Exchange Commission, No. 19-10396 (5th Cir., December 13, 2021) 
In Cochran, the court recognized that a rule set forth in Elgin v. Department of Treasury, 567 U.S.         1 (2012), which acts to preclude certain plaintiffs from seeking redress in federal district court in             favor of administrative adjudication, “cannot be absolute.” Cochran at 20.                        
        https://nclalegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Cochran-En-Banc-Opinion.pdf  Cochran v. SEC - New Civil Liberties Alliance (nclalegal.org)

On the issue of the efficacy of the injections

Halgren v. City of Naperville, 21-cv-05039

Contrary to Defendants’ claim, the nature of the disease and vaccines involved in Jacobson (and thus the legitimate government interest furthered by the legislation) present sharp factual distinctions from the current case. Unlike COVID-19, which presents an infection fatality rate range of ostensibly 0.0-1.63 percent, the smallpox pandemic killed tens of millions with an infection fatality rate of 30 percent, exceeding the death toll of World War I and II combined, and leaving even its survivors permanently scarred, blind or disabled. Likewise, the Jacobson pandemic involved higher transmissibility “attack rates” (i.e. the rate of contraction among the at-risk populations), and unlike the vaccines for COVID-19 (which are designed to mitigate symptomatic infection in the person vaccinated), the available vaccine in Jacobson was, in fact, a sterilizing vaccine that affirmatively killed the virus and prevented transmission within the community at large. Factually, this case isn’t Jacobson.

 " most current evidence …confirms no proven differential in the transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus based upon vaccination status for those infected"

“court examined the record evidence on the issue presented and finds that Plaintiffs…made a preliminary showing that that natural immunity equals the material benefits of vaccine-induced protection alone.”

 

On the travel mandate (masks not vaccines)

Health Freedom Defense Fund, Inc. et al v. Biden et al, 8:2021cv01693 (M.D. FL) filed July 12, 2021 by Brant Hadaway and George Wentz, Jr.; Amended Complaint (filed 12-13-21); Answer to Amended Complaint (1-6-21)

2 comments:

  1. This is a big list. I think you may have missed one though: HEALTH FREEDOM DEFENSE FUND v. JOSEPH R. BIDEN 8:21-cv-02679.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you, that one does not appear to involve "vaccines" but I will add it at the bottom and check it out.

      Delete