Case updates this week:

Friday December 22nd: The federal district court for the District of Columbia dismissed as moot a challenge to the CDC’s COVID-era mask mandate for the transportation industry. In Carlin v. CDC, 10 airline pilots filed suit alleging that the mask mandate was unlawful. However, the case was stayed shortly after filing when a Florida judge vacated the mask mandate nationwide in April 2022. In May 2023 the federal government declared an end to the public health emergency and automatically lifted the mask mandate order. As a result, the 11^th Circuit vacated the Florida decision and ordered the presiding judge to dismiss the case as moot, after which the litigation in Carlin resumed. The plaintiffs in Carlin argued that the case fell within two mootness exceptions and should continue despite the mask mandate being eliminated. However, the court found that neither exception applied because there was no current indication that a mask mandate will be reinstated and it is too speculative to assume that the exact same controversy will arise in the future.

Friday December 22nd: The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a decision in favor of Washington’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate for state employees in Pilz v. Inslee. The suit was brought by several former employees who were terminated after their medical or religious exemption requests were denied. They argued that Washington violated their Free Exercise Rights under the First Amendment and their rights to privacy under the Fourth Amendment, as well as bringing various claims under the state constitution. However, the Ninth Circuit affirmed that the mandate did not violate the Free Exercise Clause because the law was neutral on its face in applying to all employees and provided a system for exemptions. The plaintiffs did not challenge the law as applied, so this rational review was sufficient. The court also decided that the Fourth Amendment privacy claim was forfeited because the appellants did not continue the argument on appeal.

Tuesday December 26th: The Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that Connecticut’s governor has qualified immunity in a case against Connecticut’s COVID-19 vaccine mandates for public school teachers. In Bellatoni v. Lamont the plaintiff school teachers argued that the governor had “intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, and wantonly violated [their] constitutional rights” by mandating the vaccine when that vaccine does not, in fact, protect public health. However, the court held that public officials are entitled to qualified immunity unless the violation of federal law or constitutional right was clearly established at the time the public official acted. The court had never held that vaccine mandates were unconstitutional, and the question of the vaccine’s effectiveness was one for state policy makers based on the scientific evidence. Because of this well-established case law allowing state and local governments to institute vaccine mandates, the governor was not unreasonable in assuming he was not violating the Constitution in doing so.

Thursday December 28th: The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals followed the recent Supreme Court directive stemming from Payne v. Biden, Feds for Medical Freedom v. Biden, and Doster v. Kendall by dismissing as moot Mayes v. Biden and vacating a lower order granting a permanent injunction on the federal government’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate for contractors.

Friday January 5th: The federal district court for the Northern District of Texas granted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for millions of free-text survey responses collected through the COVID-19 V-safe program. In Freedom Coalition of Doctors for Choice v. CDC, the plaintiff, Freedom Coalition of Doctors for Choice, sought the release of data collected through the CDC’s COVID vaccine safety monitoring tool, V-safe, after the agency initially only released aggregated, check-the-box data. The court held that fulfilling the request will not impose an unreasonable burden on the agency, despite affidavits from CDC employees stating otherwise because automation and other technical tools will assist in the process. Furthermore, the court held that the plaintiffs were entitled to both expedited review, as well as a fee waiver.