89 F.4th 1186
9th Cir.2023Background
- The case concerns a challenge to President Biden's "Contractor Mandate" (Executive Order 14042), which required federal contractors to comply with COVID-19 safety protocols, including vaccination.
- Plaintiffs included the State of Arizona and several organizational plaintiffs (law enforcement and firefighter associations), challenging the mandate in district court.
- The district court granted a permanent injunction against enforcement of the Contractor Mandate.
- On appeal, the Ninth Circuit initially reversed and vacated the injunction, but before the appellate mandate issued, President Biden rescinded Executive Order 14042 via Executive Order 14099.
- During the pendency of the appeal, the Supreme Court decided similar vaccine mandate cases, vacating judgments as moot because the underlying mandates were rescinded.
- The Ninth Circuit followed suit, ruling the case was now moot, vacating its prior opinion, dismissing the appeal, and remanding with instructions to vacate district court orders related to the Contractor Mandate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Injunctive Relief Against Contractor Mandate | Mandate unlawful, permanent injunction required | Mandate was lawful, injunction should be reversed | Moot: No longer a live issue after rescission of mandate |
| Mootness Following Rescission | Case should proceed despite rescission | Case is moot after mandate rescinded | Appeal dismissed as moot; prior orders vacated |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36 (1950) (directs courts to vacate judgments when a case becomes moot on appeal)
- Demery v. Arpaio, 378 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2004) (court’s independent duty to consider mootness)