603 F.Supp.3d 975
E.D. Wash.2022Background
- Plaintiffs (314 individuals) challenged President Biden’s September 9, 2021 Executive Orders implementing COVID‑19 vaccination requirements for certain federal employees and contractors at the DOE Hanford site; the Second Amended Complaint (SAC) was filed March 4, 2022.
- Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed multiple statutory claims and several contractor defendants before Defendants (Biden, Granholm, Vance) moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.
- Defendants argued the SAC suffered from standing and ripeness defects, failed to plead facts tying agency officials to the President’s Orders, raised claims not cognizable against the President (e.g., APA), and otherwise failed to state viable legal theories.
- The Court found most plaintiffs lacked standing or presented unripe claims, many causes of action were legally deficient (Procurement Act, OFPPA, APA, RFRA/Free Exercise, Equal Protection, substantive due process), and agency officials were not properly alleged to have individual liability.
- The Court dismissed 307 of 314 plaintiffs for lack of standing, dismissed all claims against Biden, Granholm, and Vance with prejudice, and denied further amendment as futile.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal liability of Granholm & Vance | Named as defendants responsible for harms from the EOs | Plaintiffs did not plead any facts showing actions by Granholm or Vance that caused injury | Claims against Granholm and Vance dismissed for failure to plead individual liability |
| Standing of most plaintiffs | Many plaintiffs alleged harm from vaccination requirements | Majority never pursued exemptions, are vaccinated/in compliance, or failed to identify employer — no concrete, traceable, redressable injury | 307 plaintiffs dismissed for lack of standing; remaining plaintiffs’ claims still failed on merits |
| Procurement Act challenge to EO 14042 | EO violates Procurement Act for contractors | No new factual basis; court adheres to its prior conclusion that the EO satisfies Procurement Act requirements | Procurement Act claim dismissed for failure to state a claim |
| Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (OFPPA) claim | EO failed required publication/notice | Statute’s notice requirements apply to agencies, not the President; no identified private cause of action | OFPPA claim dismissed as inapplicable / not stateable |
| Administrative Procedure Act (APA) claims | EO issuance violated APA procedures | President (issuer of EOs) is not subject to APA; agency heads are not proper defendants for presidential EOs | APA claims dismissed as a matter of law |
| Free Exercise & RFRA | EO and implementation substantially burden religious exercise; exemptions denied | EO is facially neutral and generally applicable; exemptions exist; plaintiffs failed to plead sincere beliefs or substantial burden | Free Exercise and RFRA claims dismissed for failure to plead and ripeness |
| Equal Protection & Substantive Due Process | EO discriminates and infringes bodily integrity/religious liberty | Plaintiffs did not allege membership in protected class, disparate treatment specifics, or concrete coercion to vaccinate | Equal Protection and substantive due process claims dismissed |
| Leave to amend | Plaintiffs implicitly seek further amendment | Defendants oppose; plaintiffs had multiple prior amendments and opportunities | Leave to amend denied as futile; dismissal with prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (established plausibility pleading standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (conclusory allegations insufficient under Rule 8)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing elements)
- Clapper v. Amnesty Int'l USA, 568 U.S. 398 (2013) (no standing from speculative future harms)
- Franklin v. Massachusetts, 505 U.S. 788 (1992) (President not subject to APA)
- Navajo Nation v. U.S. Forest Serv., 535 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2008) (RFRA prima facie burden test)
- Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729 (9th Cir. 2001) (legal sufficiency review on motion to dismiss)
- In re Stac Elecs. Sec. Litig., 89 F.3d 1399 (9th Cir. 1996) (rejecting conclusory allegations)
- Metzler Inv. GMBH v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc., 540 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir. 2008) (materials court may consider on Rule 12)
- United States v. Corinthian Colleges, 655 F.3d 984 (9th Cir. 2011) (factors for leave to amend)