Case updates this week:

Thursday February 8th: The Minnesota Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a challenge to the governor’s authority to declare a peacetime state of emergency in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. In July 2023, the Minnesota Court of Appeals held that a pandemic fell within the definition of natural disaster in the state’s Emergency Management Act of 1996 providing the governor with the authority to issue mask mandates, social distancing requirements, and business closures. The Minnesota Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal of that decision in October 2023. A video of the oral arguments can be found here. The case, Snell v. Walz, was previously covered in this newsletter.

Friday February 9th: The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal of Antunes v. Becerra in a short opinion endorsing the district court’s ruling in its entirety. The plaintiff nurse was dismissed from her job with the University of Virginia Health Systems (UVA) after she refused to submit proof of COVID-19 vaccination pursuant to her employer’s mandate. She claimed that, in so doing, UVA violated her Equal Protection and Due Process Rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The plaintiff also sued several federal defendants, specifically the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), the Food and Drug Administration, and the heads of each agency, for violating the FDCA and the Equal Protection Clause by failing to prevent UVA from firing her. On appeal, the plaintiff continued her suit against UVA Health and the Secretary of DHHS, Xavier Becerra, only. However, the Circuit Court held that the district court was correct to dismiss all claims. They confirmed the lower court’s reasoning that being unvaccinated is not a protected class subject to strict scrutiny, and under rational basis review, UVA had a legitimate interest in curtailing the spread of COVID-19 through the mandate. Additionally, the lower court held that the claims against the federal defendants should be dismissed for lack of standing, because there was no connection between DHHS approving the COVID-19 vaccine and UVA requiring the vaccine, and because sovereign immunity protected Becerra from suit.

Wednesday February 14th: The First District Court of Appeal of Florida reversed an order of the Public Employees Relations Commission (PERC) which dismissed a challenge by a fire fighters’ union to an Orange County, Florida COVID-19 vaccine mandate. In Orange County Fire Fighters Association v. Orange County Board of County Commissioners, the union argued that by instituting the vaccine mandate without first negotiating with them, Orange County had violated state fair labor laws. After the suit was filed, but while the PERC proceedings were ongoing, the Florida state legislature passed a two-year ban on state governmental entities requiring COVID-19 vaccines for employees. PERC then dismissed the suit, because the Florida law rendered it moot. However, the Court of Appeal reversed, holding that any unfair labor practices that preceded the statutory ban on COVID-19 vaccine mandates were not moot. Further, the ban had expired in June 2023, enabling the County to reinstitute the mandate.