Kristin Mayes v. Joseph BidenKristin Mayes v. Joseph Biden
FOR PUBLICATION
ORDER
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona
Michael T. Liburdi, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted March 7, 2023
Las Vegas, Nevada
Filed December 28, 2023
Before: Richard R. Clifton, Mark J. Bennett, and Roopali H. Desai, Circuit Judges.
SUMMARY*
Mootness
The panel (1) vacated as moot this court‘s April 19, 2023, opinion concerning President Biden‘s Contractor Mandate and Executive Order 14042, which was subsequently rescinded; (2) dismissed this appeal; and (3) remanded to the district court with instructions to vacate the portion of the orders on appeal addressing all claims based on the Contractor Mandate.
COUNSEL
David L. Peters (argued), Anna O. Mohan, and Mark B. Stern, Appellate Staff Attorneys, Civil Division; Joshua Revesz, Office of the Attorney General Counsel; Shraddha A. Upadhyaya, Associate General Counsel, Office of Management and Budget; Arpit K. Garg, Deputy General Counsel; Daniel F. Jacobson, General Counsel; Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General; for Defendant-Appellants.
Alexander W. Samuels (argued), Principal Deputy Solicitor General; James K. Rogers, Senior Litigation Counsel; Drew C. Ensign, Deputy Solicitor General; Kristin K. Mayes, Arizona Attorney General; Joseph A. Kanefield, Chief Deputy and Chief of Staff; for Plaintiff-Appellees.
Kory Langhofer and Thomas Basile, Statecraft PLLC, Phoenix, Arizona;
ORDER
On April 19, 2023, this court issued its opinion in which it reversed and vacated the district court‘s grant of a permanent injunction, which had enjoined President Biden‘s “Contractor Mandate,” including Executive Order 14042. Mayes v. Biden, 67 F.4th 921, 946 (9th Cir. 2023);1 see also Executive Order 14042, Ensuring Adequate COVID Safety Protocols for Federal Contractors, 86 Fed. Reg. 50,985 (Sept. 14, 2021).
On May 9, 2023, after we issued our opinion but before the mandate issued, President Biden rescinded Executive Order 14042. See Executive Order 14099, Moving Beyond COVID-19 Vaccination Requirements for Federal Workers, 88 Fed. Reg. 30,891 (May 15, 2023). On June 15, 2023, because a judge of this court called for a vote to determine whether this case should be reheard en banc, the court directed the parties to file simultaneous briefs. The case remains pending.
On December 11, 2023, the Supreme Court vacated as moot the judgment in three cases concerning vaccine mandates, where the common issue was whether the judgment below should be vacated for mootness under
United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36 (1950). See Payne v. Biden, No. 22-1225, 2023 WL 8531836 (U.S. Dec. 11, 2023) (Mem.) (“The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit with instructions to dismiss the case as moot.“); Biden v. Feds for Med. Freedom, No. 23-60, 2023 WL 8531839 (U.S. Dec. 11, 2023) (Mem.) (“The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit with instructions to direct the District Court to vacate as moot its order granting a preliminary injunction.“); Kendall v. Doster, No. 23-154, 2023 WL 8531840 (U.S. Dec. 11, 2023) (Mem.) (“The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit with instructions to direct the District Court to vacate as moot its preliminary injunctions.“).
In accordance with Payne, Feds for Medical Freedom, and Doster, it is hereby ORDERED (1) that the opinion of this court, 67 F.4th 921, is vacated as moot and this appeal is dismissed;2 and (2) that this case is remanded with instructions to vacate the portion of the orders on appeal addressing all claims based on the Contractor Mandate.