574 F.Supp.3d 1
D.D.C.2021Background
- Ronald C. McCray, Jr., an IRS employee and part‑time DoD contractor, is unvaccinated and alleges natural immunity from prior COVID‑19 infection; he seeks to block two Presidential Executive Orders (No. 14,042 and No. 14,043) that implement COVID‑19 vaccine requirements for federal contractors and federal employees.
- Executive Order 14,042 directed agencies to require contractor compliance with Safer Federal Workforce Task Force guidance; that guidance required covered contractor employees to be fully vaccinated by mid‑January 2022 and allowed medical/religious accommodation procedures.
- Executive Order 14,043 directed agencies to implement COVID‑19 vaccination programs for federal employees, with Task Force guidance setting a mid‑November 2021 deadline for employees to be fully vaccinated and describing progressive enforcement (education, counseling, discipline, possible removal); accommodation procedures were provided.
- McCray filed for a temporary restraining order and declaratory relief arguing the Orders are invalid because (1) the public‑health emergency declaration was fraudulent and violated the FDCA; (2) the Orders violate substantive due process (bodily integrity); (3) they violate equal protection by treating natural immunity differently; and (4) they are arbitrary and capricious under the APA.
- At the initial conference McCray stated he had applied for a medical exemption (incomplete application), had not suffered any adverse employment action, and expected denial; the government represented that employees with pending exemptions would not face discipline and deadlines did not apply while requests are under consideration.
- The court denied the TRO and dismissed the complaint without prejudice, concluding it lacked subject‑matter jurisdiction to enjoin the President and that McCray’s claims were not ripe.
Issues
| Issue | McCray's Argument | Biden Administration's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Availability of injunctive/declaratory relief against the President | McCray seeks injunction/declaratory relief directly naming the President to block enforcement of EO 14,042 and EO 14,043 | Courts generally lack power to enjoin the President; relief can be obtained against subordinate executive officials who implement Orders | Court: Plaintiff lacks standing to seek injunctive or declaratory relief against the President as sued; no Article III jurisdiction over claims as framed — TRO denied and case dismissed without prejudice |
| Ripeness of challenge to vaccine mandates | McCray contends Orders already threaten his employment and bodily integrity and requires immediate relief | No adverse action has occurred; McCray’s medical‑exemption request is pending and employees with pending requests are not subject to discipline — injury speculative | Court: Claims unripe because they rest on contingent future events (possible denial and future discipline); no imminent injury shown |
| Substantive due process / bodily integrity challenge | McCray argues forced injection implicates fundamental liberty and requires strict scrutiny | Government emphasizes public‑health and workplace safety interests and points to procedural protections (accommodations, counseling, progressive enforcement); also raises jurisdictional/ripeness defenses | Court did not reach merits; dismissed on jurisdictional and ripeness grounds |
| Equal protection (natural immunity) and APA arbitrary‑and‑capricious claim | McCray asserts irrational discrimination against those with natural immunity and that Orders lack substantial evidence and violate APA | Government defends discretionary policy choices, scientific basis for vaccination policy, and again raises jurisdictional and ripeness defenses | Court did not reach merits; dismissed on jurisdictional and ripeness grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Mississippi v. Johnson, 71 U.S. 475 (establishes general rule that courts lack jurisdiction to enjoin the President)
- Franklin v. Massachusetts, 505 U.S. 788 (plurality) (reaffirming general prohibition on injunctions against the President; leaves open ministerial‑duty exception)
- Swan v. Clinton, 100 F.3d 973 (D.C. Cir.) (declines to order President to act; discusses tension between separation‑of‑powers and rule‑of‑law concerns)
- Newdow v. Roberts, 603 F.3d 1002 (D.C. Cir.) (observes that courts do not sit in judgment of President’s executive decisions and lack jurisdiction to enjoin him)
- National Treasury Employees Union v. Nixon, 492 F.2d 587 (D.C. Cir.) (noted as a rare D.C. Circuit instance of declaratory relief involving the President)
- Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (example of litigation challenging executive action where relief was sought against implementing officials)
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83 (jurisdictional limits require dismissal when court lacks Article III jurisdiction)
- Elgin v. Department of the Treasury, 567 U.S. 1 (review‑scheme for adverse federal employment actions; potential alternative forum for employee challenges)