Donovan v. Vance, 576 F.Supp.3d 816

Plaintiffs: ~292 workers at the Hanford nuclear site (most employed by private contractors; seven by DOE) who oppose employer vaccine requirements tied to Presidents’ Executive Orders 14042 (contractors) and 14043 (federal employees).
DOE implemented contract modifications and Task Force guidance; contractor deadlines for covered employees were initially December 8, 2021 (later extended to January 18, 2022); employers created exemption/accommodation processes.
Plaintiffs filed for declaratory relief, a TRO, and a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin the vaccine requirements; defendants are federal officials and several private contractor officials named in their official capacities.
Court identified procedural defects (improper captioning, misjoined/improper contractor defendants) and noted the motion largely repeated issues already rejected in a prior local case.
On the merits the court treated the motion as a pre‑enforcement challenge, found plaintiffs’ claims unripe and deficient (lack of imminent injury, failure to exhaust administrative remedies for Title VII/ADA claims, weak First Amendment showing), and concluded the Procurement Act authorized the Executive Order nexus to contracting efficiency.
Conclusion: Motion for declaratory relief, TRO, and preliminary injunction DENIED.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Ripeness / standing (pre‑enforcement challenge)	Plaintiffs will face termination if they refuse vaccination and thus face imminent injury.	No imminent enforcement: deadlines extended; many plaintiffs pending or pursuing exemptions; defendants represent no imminent adverse action.	Claims unripe: plaintiffs failed to show a genuine threat of imminent harm; prudential ripeness also favors delay.
Free Exercise (First Amendment)	Vaccination mandate burdens religious exercise and is not neutral/applicable.	EOs are facially neutral and generally applicable; secular public‑health interest.	Free exercise claim fails: EOs are neutral and generally applicable; plaintiffs did not plead sincere religious burden sufficient to trigger strict scrutiny.
Procurement Act authority	EO 14042 exceeds presidential authority under the Procurement Act / other separation of powers concerns.	President may prescribe policies necessary to carry out procurement; EO promotes economy and efficiency by reducing COVID‑related worker absence and improving contractor performance.	EO 14042 satisfies the Procurement Act nexus requirement; plaintiffs unlikely to succeed on this claim.
Title VII / ADA (failure to accommodate/exhaustion)	Plaintiffs assert statutory discrimination and accommodation claims.	Plaintiffs have not exhausted administrative remedies (required precondition).	Claims barred for failure to exhaust; cannot show likelihood of success.

Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (establishes the four‑factor preliminary injunction standard)
Stuhlbarg Int’l Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240 F.3d 832 (9th Cir. 2001) (TRO/prliminary injunction analysis parallels injunction standard)
All. for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2011) (sliding‑scale approach: serious questions + balance of hardships)
Farris v. Seabrook, 677 F.3d 858 (9th Cir. 2012) (discusses alternate formulation of Winter test)
Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993) (free exercise neutrality and general applicability framework)
Thomas v. Anchorage Equal Rights Comm’n, 220 F.3d 1134 (9th Cir. 2000) (ripeness doctrine; constitutional and prudential components)
Wolfson v. Brammer, 616 F.3d 1045 (9th Cir. 2010) (pre‑enforcement standing requires genuine threat of imminent prosecution)
BST Holdings, L.L.C. v. Occupational Safety & Health Admin., 17 F.4th 604 (5th Cir. 2021) (OSHA ETS decision—distinguished by the court as inapposite)
UAW‑Lab. Emp. & Training Corp. v. Chao, 325 F.3d 360 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (Procurement Act nexus analysis and deference to broad presidential authority under the Act)
Pac. Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen’s Med. Ctr., 810 F.3d 631 (9th Cir. 2015) (pleading requirements for claims not raised in the complaint)
Young v. Hawaii, 992 F.3d 765 (9th Cir. 2021) (facial challenge standards; difficulty of facial First Amendment challenges)