Here are cases on the CDC eviction moratorium, and the CDC cruise ship restrictions, and the CDC transportation mask mandates, starting with a summary of the eviction moratorium litigation — I’ll try to keep it updated as necessary. Note: CDC transportation mask mandate cases are now being updated only on the separate page https://affordablecareactlitigation.com/sanitation-and-other-measures/
Several cases, brought by landlords and realtors, have attempted to invalidate the CDC eviction moratorium. Alphabetically by jurisdiction, they are
Alabama Ass’n of Realtors v. U.S. D.H.H.S., No. 1:20-cv-3377 (D. D.C.), No. 21-5093 (D.C. Cir.), No. 20A169 (U.S. Supreme Court) (district court ruling against moratorium, but stayed; D.C. Circuit ruling for moratorium in affirming stay; Supreme Court ruling affirming stay, 5-4, with Kavanaugh concurrence about limited duration of moratorium and stay; landlords return to court after new partial moratorium issued)
Brown v. Azar, No. 1:20-cv-3702 (N.D. Ga.), No. 20-14210 (11th Cir.) (district court denying injunction against moratorium, Eleventh Circuit affirming denial)
Chambless Enterprises v. Redfield, No. 3:20-cv-1455 (W.D. La.), No. 21-30037 (5th Cir.) (district court denying injunction against moratorium, case pending on Fifth Circuit appeal)
Skyworks, Ltd., v. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, No. 5:20-cv-2407 (N.D. Ohio), Nos. 21-3443 and 21-3563 (6th Cir.) (trial level ruling against moratorium, but limited to parties and area; landlords’ appeal and U.S.’s appeal both pending)
Tiger Lily LLC v. U.S. Dep’t of Housing and Urban Development, No. 2:20-cv-2692 (W.D. Tenn.), No. 21-5256 (6th Cir.) (trial level ruling against moratorium, affirmed by Sixth Circuit); and
Terkel v. Center for Disease Control and Prevention, No. 6:20-cv-564 (E.D. Tex.), No. 21-40137 (5th Cir.) (trial level ruling that moratorium beyond federal power; case pending on Fifth Circuit appeal)
There are also a takings case, in the Court of Federal Claims, in which landlords are seeking damages, and a due process case, with a motion pending before the Supreme Court, where landlords are seeking to overturn a New York State eviction moratorium.
National Apt. Ass’n v. U.S., No. 1:21-cv-1621 (Ct. Fed. Cl.) (just filed)
Chrysafis v. Marks, No. 2:21-cv-2516 (E.D. N.Y.), No. 21A8 (U.S. Supreme Court) (trial court denying landlords injunction)
Terkel is the case that holds that an eviction moratorium is beyond the power of the Federal Government, no matter what the text of the CDC’s statute might say. The other cases interpret the text. The first case that has gone to the Supreme Court is the Alabama Association of Realtors case: Judge Friedrich held that the moratorium was not authorized by statute, but stayed her ruling; the D.C. Circuit upheld the stay while observing that the CDC was likely to win on the merits; the Supreme Court’s order sustained the stay, with Justice Kavanaugh concurring to say that the U.S. would lose on the merits but the equities supported keeping the moratorium in place until July 31. After the CDC partially extended the moratorium on August 3, the plaintiffs filed motions in district court, which were heard August 9.
In the Chrysafis case, challenging the New York State eviction moratorium, the Supreme Court asked the New York authorities to respond to the emergency motion by 4 pm EDT Wednesday, August 4, which they did.
42 U.S. Code § 264 – Regulations to control communicable diseases
The Surgeon General, with the approval of the Secretary, is authorized to make and enforce such regulations as in his judgment are necessary to prevent the introduction, transmission, or spread of communicable diseases from foreign countries into the States or possessions, or from one State or possession into any other State or possession. For purposes of carrying out and enforcing such regulations, the Surgeon General may provide for such inspection, fumigation, disinfection, sanitation, pest extermination, destruction of animals or articles found to be so infected or contaminated as to be sources of dangerous infection to human beings, and other measures, as in his judgment may be necessary.
Regulations prescribed under this section shall not provide for the apprehension, detention, or conditional release of individuals except for the purpose of preventing the introduction, transmission, or spread of such communicable diseases as may be specified from time to time in Executive orders of the President upon the recommendation of the Secretary, in consultation with the Surgeon General,[1].
Except as provided in subsection (d), regulations prescribed under this section, insofar as they provide for the apprehension, detention, examination, or conditional release of individuals, shall be applicable only to individuals coming into a State or possession from a foreign country or a possession.
Nothing in this section or section 266 of this title, or the regulations promulgated under such sections, may be construed as superseding any provision under State law (including regulations and including provisions established by political subdivisions of States), except to the extent that such a provision conflicts with an exercise of Federal authority under this section or section 266 of this title.
Moratorium, CARES Act, Pub. L. 116-136, sec. 4024:
Temporary halt, 85 Fed. Reg. 55,292 (Sept. 4, 2020)
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, Pub. L. 116-260, Div. N., Sec. 502
Temporary halt, 86 Fed.Reg. 8020 (Feb. 3, 2021)
Moratorium extension, 86 Fed. Reg. 16,731 (March 31, 2021) (signed 3/28)
Temporary halt, until July 31, released June 24, 2021
CDC_Eviction_Extension_Order_Final_06242021
Letter to courts and court administrators from Associate Attorney General Gupta, June 24, 2021
Letter from Associate Attorney General Gupta_June 24 2021
New partial moratorium, August 3, 2021
CDC cases: eviction moratorium
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA/D.C. CIRCUIT
Alabama Ass’n of Realtors v. U.S. D.H.H.S., No. 1:20-cv-3377 (D. D.C., filed Nov. 20, 2020)
Complaint
Motion for expedited summary judgment, Nov. 20, 2020
| 12/04/2020 | MINUTE ORDER granting the parties’ 15 Joint Motion for Briefing Schedule. Accordingly, the defendants shall provide the administrative record to the plaintiffs and file a certified list of its contents on or before December 11, 2020; the defendants shall file their opposition to the plaintiffs’ expedited summary judgment motion and their cross-motion for summary judgment on or before December 21, 2020; the plaintiffs shall file any reply in support of their motion and their opposition to the defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment on or before December 28, 2020; and the defendants shall file any reply in support of their cross-motion on or before January 6, 2021. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the defendants’ obligation to answer shall be deferred to 30 days following resolution of the cross-motions, if the case remains pending. So Ordered by Judge Dabney L. Friedrich on December 4, 2020. (lcdlf2) (Entered: 12/04/2020) |
US motion for summary judgment/opposition to plaintiffs’ motion, Dec. 21, 2020
Plaintiffs’ opposition/reply, Dec. 28, 2020
US reply, Jan. 6, 2021
US partial motion to dismiss, Jan. 6, 2021
Joint status report, Feb. 8, 2021
| 02/10/2021 | MINUTE ORDER. Upon consideration of the parties’ 36 Joint Status Report, it is ORDERED that the following schedule shall govern further proceedings: the plaintiffs shall file a response to the defendants’ partial motion to dismiss on or before February 15, 2021; the defendants shall file a reply in support of their partial motion to dismiss on or before February 22, 2021; the defendants shall file an updated certified list of the contents of the administrative record on or before February 22, 2021; and the plaintiffs shall file an appendix pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7(n) on or before February 24, 2021. So Ordered by Judge Dabney L. Friedrich on February 10, 2021. (lcdlf2) (Entered: 02/10/2021) |
Plaintiffs’ opposition to US motion to dismiss, Feb. 15, 2021
US reply supporting motion to dismiss, Feb. 22, 2021
| 04/29/2021 | Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Dabney L. Friedrich: Motion Hearing held on 4/29/2021 re 32 Partial MOTION to Dismiss filed by NINA B WITKOFSKY, CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION, WILLIAM P. BARR, ROBERT R. REDFIELD, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, ALEX M. AZAR, II, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, 26 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by NINA B WITKOFSKY, CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION, WILLIAM P. BARR, ROBERT R. REDFIELD, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, ALEX M. AZAR, II, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES. Court Reporter Sara Wick. (zjch) (Entered: 04/29/2021) |
| MEMORANDUM OPINION regarding the plaintiffs’ 6 Motion for Expedited Summary Judgment and the defendants’ 26 Motion for Summary Judgment and 32 Partial Motion to Dismiss. See text for details. Signed by Judge Dabney L. Friedrich on May 5, 2021. (lcdlf1) (Entered: 05/05/2021) |
Opinion, May 5, 2021
Order, May 5, 2021
US notice of appeal, May 5, 2021
US motion for emergency stay, May 5, 2021
| 05/05/2021 | MINUTE ORDER. Before the Court is the defendants’ 57 Emergency Motion for a Stay Pending Appeal of this Court’s 53 May 5, 2021 Order vacating the national eviction moratorium at 86 Fed. Reg. 16,731. In this emergency motion, the defendants request an immediate administrative stay to give this Court time to consider and rule upon its motion to stay this case pending appeal. Alternatively, the defendants request that the Court stay its 53 May 5, 2021 Order as to all parties except for the plaintiffs. Defs.’ Emergency Mot. for a Stay Pending Appeal at 1 n.1, 8-9, Dkt. 57. Although the plaintiffs have not yet filed an opposition to the defendants’ motion, which was filed at 6:54 p.m. this evening, the defendants represent that the plaintiffs oppose the motion. Id. at 1 n.1. In order to give the Court time to consider the merits of the defendants’ 57 Emergency Motion for a Stay Pending Appeal, and the plaintiffs time to file an opposition to the motion, the Court will grant the defendants’ request for a temporary administrative stay.This Minute Order should not be construed in any way as a ruling on the merits of the defendants’ motion. The Court notes, however, that, as the Court has explained, see Mem. Op. at 19, Dkt. 54, the law in this Circuit is clear: where a court concludes that an agency has exceeded its statutory authority, as this Court has done here, see Mem. Op. at 17, vacatur of the rule is the proper remedy in this Circuit. See Nat’l Mining Ass’n v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 145 F.3d 1399, 1409 (D.C. Cir. 1998). Based on this clear authority, courts in this Circuit do not restrict vacatur only to those plaintiffs before the Court. See, e.g., O.A. v. Trump, 404 F. Supp. 3d 109, 152-53 (D.D.C. 2019). Indeed, the government has been unable to point to a single case in which a court in this Circuit has done so. See Mot. Hr’g Rough Tr. at 31.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Court’s 53 May 5, 2021 Order is administratively STAYED. It is further ORDERED that the plaintiffs shall file any opposition to the defendants’ motion on or before May 12, 2021, and the defendants shall file any reply within four days of the date the plaintiffs’ opposition is filed. So Ordered by Judge Dabney L. Friedrich on May 5, 2021. (lcdlf1) (Entered: 05/05/2021) |
D.C. Circuit # 21-5093
US emergency motion for stay at D.C. Circuit, May 7, 2021
DCC US emergency mo stay 5 7 21
Plaintiffs’ opposition to US motion for stay, May 7, 2021
US’s reply supporting stay, May 11, 2021
Stay opinion and order, May 14, 2021
Plaintiffs’ letter to Judge Friedrich, May 17, 2021
Plaintiffs’ emergency motion, May 17, 2021
D.C. Circuit scheduling order, May 18, 2021
US’s response to plaintiffs’ May 17 letter, May 19, 2021
US opposition to plaintiffs’ emergency motion, May 24, 2021
Plaintiffs’ reply supporting emergency motion, May 26, 2021
DCC Alabama Assn lift emergency stay reply
American Academy of Pediatrics amicus, June 1, 2021
Order, June 2, 2021
Plaintiffs’ emergency application for vacatur of stay, June 3, 2021
20210603170521964_SCOTUS Application to Vacate Stay
| Jun 04 2021 | Response to application (20A169) requested by The Chief Justice, due Thursday, June 10, 2021, by 5 p.m. |
21 states’ amicus response, June 10, 2021
20210610135137833_FINAL COMBINED Mtn CDC Br
US response, June 10, 2021
20210610160741010_20A169 Alabama Realtors
Plaintiffs’ reply, June 14, 2021
20210614135951026_20A169 – Reply ISO Application
Plaintiffs’ letter, June 23, 2021
20210624124944980_20A169 Supreme Court Letter Regarding June 2021 Extension
US letter re CDC one-month moratorium extension, June 24, 2021
20210624160206672_letter 20A169
American Academy of Pediatrics amicus, June 28, 2021
20210628112000610_Alabama Realtors v. HHS 20A169 motion and brief of amici curiae AAP et al
Order, June 29, 2021
US notice of partial moratorium, August 3, 2021
AAR US notice partial moratorium 8 3
Plaintiffs’ emergency motion to enforce Supreme Court ruling, August 4, 2021
| 08/05/2021 | MINUTE ORDER. It is ORDERED that the defendants shall file any opposition to the plaintiffs’ 67 Emergency Motion before August 6, 2021 at 9:00 a.m. The plaintiffs shall file any reply before August 6, 2021 at 7:00 p.m. So Ordered by Judge Dabney L. Friedrich on August 5, 2021. (lcdlf1) (Entered: 08/05/2021) |
US response to emergency motion, August 6, 2021
Third Amendment Lawyers’ Association motion for leave to file amicus, and amicus, August 6, 2021
Third Amendment Lawyers Assn mo leave file
Third Amendment Lawyers Assn amicus
Plaintiffs’ reply, August 6, 2021
|
08/06/2021 |
MINUTE ORDER scheduling a hearing by videoconference on the plaintiffs’ 67 Emergency Motion on August 9, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. So Ordered by Judge Dabney L. Friedrich on August 6, 2021. (lcdlf1) (Entered: 08/06/2021) |
| 08/09/2021 | Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Dabney L. Friedrich: Motion Hearing held on 8/9/2021 re 67 Emergency MOTION to Enforce the Supreme Court’s Ruling and Vacate the Stay Pending Appeal MOTION to Vacate filed by FORDHAM & ASSOCIATES, LLC, ROBERT GILSTRAP, ALABAMA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS, TITLE ONE MANAGEMENT, LLC, H.E. CAUTHEN LAND AND DEVELOPMENT, LLC, GEORGIA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS, DANNY FORDHAM. Court Reporter Sara Wick (zjch) (Entered: 08/09/2021) |
Plaintiffs’ notice of supplemental authority (Chrysafis), August 12, 2021
Order denying enforcement motion, August 13, 2021
Plaintiffs’ emergency motion, August 14, 2021
D.C. Circuit scheduling order, August 14, 2021
US opposition, August 16, 2021
Plaintiffs’ reply, August 17, 2021
D.C. Circuit order, August 20, 2021
Emergency motion to vacate, No. 21A23, August 20, 2021
| Aug 20 2021 | Response to application (21A23) requested by The Chief Justice, due Monday, August 23, 2021, by noon. |
US response to emergency motion, August 23, 2021
20210823114141455_21A23 Response in Opposition
Plaintiffs’ reply, August 24, 2021
District Court opinion revised after transcript release, August 25, 2021
AAR memorandum opinion revised 8 25 21
Supreme Court opinion vacating stay, August 26, 2021
==============
WESTERN LOUISIANA/FIFTH CIRCUIT
Chambless Enterprises v. Redfield, No. 3:20-cv-1455 (W.D. La.)
[]
Ruling, Dec. 20, 2020
Fifth Circuit # 21-30037
Statement of issues, Feb. 5, 2021
5C Chambless statement of issues
Appellants’ opening brief, March 22, 2021
Appellees’ brief, April 21, 2021
Appellants’ motion to expedite appeal, April 23, 2021
5C Chambless appellant mo expedite
US response to motion to expedite appeal, April 26, 2021
Disability Rights Texas amicus, April 27, 2021
5C Chambless Disability Rights Texas amicus
Constitutional Accountability Center amicus, April 28, 2021
American Academy of Pediatrics amicus, April 28, 2021
5C Chambless Am Acad Pediatrics amicus
Acadiana Legal Service amicus, April 28, 2021
5C Chambless Acadiana Legal Service amicus
Order carrying motion to expedite with the case, May 4, 2021
5C order carrying mo expedite with case
Appellants’ reply brief, May 12, 2021
Order affirming stay of trial-level proceedings, June 2, 2021
Chambless order affirming trial level stay 6 2 21
US notice of supplemental authority (D.C. Circuit), June 3, 2021
US notice of one month moratorium extension, June 24, 2021
5C Chambless US notice moratorium xt
Plaintiffs’ notice of additional authority (U.S. Supreme Court), July 2, 2021
5C Chambless pltf addl auth (USC)
US notice of additional authority (Brown, 11th Cir.), July 15, 2021
Plaintiffs’ notice of additional authority (Tiger Lily, 6th Cir.), July 27, 2021
5C Chambless pltf addl auth Tiger Lily
Plaintiffs’ motion for injunction pending appeal, August 18, 2021
Fifth Circuit scheduling order, August 19, 2021
US opposition to motion for injunction pending appeal, August 22, 2021
Acadiana LS amicus, August 23, 2021
Plaintiffs’ additional authority (AAR), August 27, 2021
5C Chambless pltf addl authority (AAR), 8 27
Order, August 27, 2021
Unopposed motion to dismiss appeal, September 9, 2021
Order dismissing appeal, September 21, 2021
Stipulation of dismissal of trial court case, as refiled September 28, 2021
==========
NORTHERN GEORGIA/ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
Brown v. Azar, No. 1:20-cv-3702 (N.D. Ga.)
[]
Order denying preliminary injunction, October 29, 2020
Eleventh Circuit # 20-14210
Plaintiffs’ motion for injunction pending appeal, November 12, 2020
US opposition to motion for injunction pending appeal, November 23, 2020
Order denying motion for injunction pending appeal,
Appellants’ brief, December 21, 2020
US appellee brief, February 19, 2021
Appellants’ reply brief, March 12, 2021
[]
Opinion, July 14, 2021
Order withholding issuance of mandate, July 19, 2021
Petition for rehearing en banc, August 13, 2021
Plaintiffs’ additional authority (U.S. Supreme Court), August 27, 2021
US motion to dismiss appeal as moot, September 7, 2021
Response to motion, September 9, 2021
=======
NORTHERN OHIO/SIXTH CIRCUIT
Skyworks, Ltd., v. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, No. 5:20-cv-2407 (N.D. Ohio)
[]
Opinion, March 10, 2021
Declaratory judgment, March 10, 2021
Plaintiffs’ motion and memo to clarify or amend judgment, April 7, 2021
Skyworks pltf mo clarify amend
Skyworks pltf ms clarify amend
US opposition to motion to clarify or amend, April 29, 2021
Skyworks US op to clarif amend
Notice of appeal, May 7, 2021
Plaintiffs’ reply supporting clarifying or amending judgment, May 7, 2021
Sixth Circuit #21-3443
Unopposed US motion for abeyance, May 14, 2021
Abeyance order, May 14, 2021
Order and judgment clarifying judgment, June 3, 2021
Skyworks opinion and order clarifying
US notice of appeal, June 4, 2021
Plaintiffs’ notice of cross-appeal, June 15, 2021
Skyworks pltf notice x appeal 6 15
Sixth Circuit # 21-3563
US request for extension of time, August 13, 2021
Plaintiffs’ opposition to extension, August 17, 2021
Extension order, August 27, 2021
US unopposed motion voluntarily to dismiss appeal, September 2, 2021
6C skyworks us vol dism appeal
Voluntary dismissal order, September 3, 2021
Voluntary dismissal order, September 21, 2021
======
WESTERN TENNESSEE/SIXTH CIRCUIT
Tiger Lily LLC v. U.S. Dep’t of Housing and Urban Development, No. 2:20-cv-2692 (W.D. Tenn.)
[]
Order denying preliminary injunction, November 6, 2020
Order, March 15, 2021
Judgment,
Sixth Circuit # 21-5256
Emergency motion for stay, March 18, 2021
Order requesting response, March 19, 2021
Plaintiffs’ opposition, March 22, 2021
US reply, March 22, 2021
Plaintiffs’ supplemental response, March 23, 2021
US additional reply, March 24, 2021
Order denying stay, March 29, 2021
US opening brief, May 12, 2021
Constitutional Accountability Center amicus, May 19, 2021
6C Constitutional Accountabilty Center amicus
Appellee brief, June 11, 2021
Buckeye Institute amicus, June 18, 2021
US reply brief, July 16, 2021
Opinion, July 23, 2021
EASTERN TEXAS/FIFTH CIRCUIT
Terkel v. Center for Disease Control and Prevention, No. 6:20-cv-564 (E.D. Tex.)
[]
Opinion, Feb. 25, 2021
Fifth Circuit # 21-40137
Appellants’ brief, April 26, 2021
Constitutional Accountability Center amicus, May 3, 2021
Desmond amicus, May 3/4, 2021
Texas Appleseed amicus, May 3, 2021
Civil Liberties Organizations amicus, May 3, 2021
5C Civil Liberties Organizations amicus
NAACP amicus, May 3/4, 2021
COVID-19 Eviction Defense Project amicus, May 3, 2021
5C Covid-19 Eviction Defense Project amicus
National Housing Law Project amicus, May 3, 2021
American Academy of Pediatrics amicus, May 3, 2021
5C American Acad Pediatrics amicus
Appellees’ brief, May 26, 2021
Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence amicus, June 2, 2021
Cato amicus, June 2, 2021
Texas Apartment Association amicus, June 2, 2021
5C Texas Apartment Assn amicus
State of Texas amicus, June 2, 2021
Buckeye Institute amicus, June 2, 2021
National Ass’n of Home Builders amicus, June 10, 2021
5C Natl Assn Home Builders amicus
US reply brief, June 30, 2021
Texas request to participate in oral argument, August 20, 2021
Order allowing Texas to participate, August 25, 2021
Plaintiffs’ additional authority (AAR), August 25, 2021
5C Terkel pltf addl auth (AAR)
Plaintiffs’ additional authority (AAR, USC), August 31, 2021
5C Terkel notice supp auth AAR 8 31
US motion to dismiss appeal voluntarily, September 9, 2021
Plaintiffs’ opposition, September 13, 2021
US reply, September 14, 2021
Order carrying motion to dismiss voluntarily with the case, September 15, 2021
5C Terkel order carrying vol dism wi case
US motion to participate by remote means, September 28, 2021
Order denying US motion to participate remotely, September 28, 2021
Plaintiffs’ notice re cases to cite at oral argument, October 3, 2021
5C Terkel notice re cases to be cited at oa
| 10/06/2021 | ORAL ARGUMENT HEARD before Judges Jones, Smith, Haynes. Arguing Person Information Updated for: Robert E. Henneke arguing for Appellee Limited Lakeridge Apartments, Appellee Limited Lufkin Creekside Apartments II, Appellee L.L.C. MacDonald Property Management, Appellee Limited Pineywoods Arcadia Home Team, Appellee Lauren Terkel; Arguing Person Information Updated for: Brian James Springer arguing for Appellant Secretary Becerra, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Appellant Sherri A. Berger, Appellant Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Appellant United States Department of Health and Human Services, Appellant United States of America [21-40137] (PFT) [Entered: 10/06/2021 03:50 PM] |
Terkel opinion, October 19, 2021
===========
OTHER CASES
Other CDC cases, referenced by the U.S. in its trial-level Terkel pleadings:
Chambless Enterprises, LLC v. Redfield, No. 3:20-cv-1455 (W.D. La.)
Ruling denying motion for preliminary injunction, December 22, 2020
Chambless Enterprises order denying PI
Tiger Lily LLC v. U.S. Dep’t of Housing and Urban Development, No. 2:20-cv-2692 (W.D. Tenn.)
Order denying preliminary injunction, November 6, 2020
[]
Sixth Circuit
but see above
Brown v. Azar, No. 1:20-cv-3702 (N.D. Ga.)
Order denying preliminary injunction, October 29, 2020
KBW Investment Properties v. Azar, No. 2:20-cv-4852 (S.D. Ohio)
Order denying TRO, September 29, 2020
Order dismissing case after stipulation, October 9, 2020
Court of Federal Claims takings case
National Apartment Ass’n v. U.S., No. 1:21-cv-1621 (Ct. Fed. Cl.), filed July 27, 2021
Complaint
New York State eviction moratorium case
Chrysafis v. Marks, No. 2:21-cv-2516 (E.D. N.Y.)
Chrysafis v. Marks, Emergency Application for Writ of Injunction, No. 21A8 (July 27, 2021)
20210727101212346_Chrysafis v. Marks Supreme Court Application
20210727101223932_Chrysafis v. Marks Exhibits A-M
| Jul 28 2021 | Response to application (21A8) requested by Justice Sotomayor, due Wednesday, August 4, 2021, by 4 p.m. |
New York opposition, August 4, 2021
20210804143559744_21A8 Brief in Opposition to Application
Plaintiffs’ reply, August 5, 2021
20210805142640723_Chrysafis v Marks Reply ISO Emergency Application
| Aug 12 2021 | Application (21A8) granted by the Court. The application for injunctive relief presented to JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR and by her referred to the Court is granted pending disposition of the appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari, if such writ is timely sought. Should the petition for a writ of certiorari be denied, this order shall terminate automatically. In the event the petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, the order shall terminate upon the sending down of the judgment of this Court. This order enjoins the enforcement of only Part A of the COVID Emergency Eviction and Foreclosure Prevention Act (CEEFPA). 2020 N. Y. Laws ch. 381. That is the only relief applicants seek. See Case No. 2:21-cv-02516, ECF No. 1 at 9; Emergency App. 7, 40. If a tenant self-certifies financial hardship, Part A of CEEFPA generally precludes a landlord from contesting that certification and denies the landlord a hearing. This scheme violates the Court’s longstanding teaching that ordinarily “no man can be a judge in his own case” consistent with the Due Process Clause. In re Murchison, 349 U. S. 133, 136 (1952); see United States v. James Daniel Good Real Property, 510 U. S. 43, 53 (1993) (due process generally requires a hearing). This order does not enjoin the enforcement of the Tenant Safe Harbor Act (TSHA), which applicants do not challenge. 2020 N. Y. Laws ch. 127, §§1, 2(2)(a). Among other things, TSHA instructs New York courts to entertain a COVID-related hardship defense in eviction proceedings, assessing a tenant’s income prior to COVID, income during COVID, liquid assets, and ability to obtain government assistance. §2(2)(b). If the court finds the tenant “has suffered a financial hardship” during a statutorily-prescribed period, then it “shall [not] issue a warrant of eviction or judgment of pos-session.” §2(1). JUSTICE BREYER, with whom JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR and JUSTICE KAGAN join, dissenting from grant of application for injunctive relief. |
Breyer dissent, August 12, 2021
=====
Minnesota takings case
Heights Apartments, LLC v. Walz, No. 21-1278 (8th Cir., April 5, 2022)
=======
Court of Federal Claims takings case
National Apartment Ass’n v. U.S., No. 1:21-cv-1621 (Ct. Fed. Cl.), filed July 27, 2021
Complaint
Indiana University vaccine passport case
Klaassen v. Trustees of Indiana University, No. 1:21-cv-238 (N.D. Ind., filed June 21, 2021)
Complaint
[]
Opinion and Order, July 18, 2021
Klaassen opinion and order denying pi
Seventh Circuit # 21-2326
Trial court order denying injunction pending appeal, July 21, 2021
Emergency motion for injunction pending appeal, July 23, 2021
7C Klaassen plit emergency mo ipa
Scheduling order, July 25, 2021
IU opposition to injunction pending appeal, July 27, 2021
Plaintiffs’ reply supporting injunction pending appeal, July 30, 2021
Seventh Circuit order denying injunction pending appeal, August 2, 2021
Supreme Court emergency motion for injunction, plus appendix, No. 21A15, filed August 6, 2021
20210806095541542_IU VAX SCOTUS writ of inj app FINAL
20210806095625645_IU Vax Appendix Final for Filing
Physicians for Informed Consent amicus, August 10, 2021
20210810123328658_PIC Amicus Brief for SCOTUS in Klaassen case — FINAL
| Aug 12 2021 | Application (21A15) denied by Justice Barrett. |
IU motion to dismiss appeal, August 27, 2021
Order requesting response, August 30, 2021
7C order requesting response 8 30
Plaintiffs’ opposition to dismissing appeal, September 8, 2021
Order denying motion to dismiss appeal, September 10, 2021
=====
Antonin Scalia Law School vaccine mandate case
Zywicki v. Washington, No. 1:21-cv-894 (E.D. Va., filed August 3, 2021)
Complaint, with attachments
Notice of voluntary dismissal, August 20, 2021
“So ordered,” August 20, 2021
=======
CDC cases: cruise ships
The cruise ships cases are Florida v. Becerra, No. 8:21-cv-839 (M.D. Fla.), and Norwegian Cruise Lines v. Renkees, No. 1:21-cv-22492 (S.D. Fla.). One thing Florida has challenged is the CDC’s requirement that 95% of travelers on cruise ships be vaccinated. The cruise lines, on the other hand, challenge Florida’s law forbidding them to require vaccinations. The CDC order has expired, and Florida and intervenor Texas have dismissed their cases.
Florida v. Becerra, No. 8:21-cv-839 (M.D. Fla., filed April 8, 2021)
Complaint, with exhibits
Alaska motion to intervene, with exhibits, April 20, 2021
Florida motion for preliminary injunction, w/o exhibits, April 22, 2021
[exhibits]
Alaska supplement to motion to intervene, April 22, 2021
Florida request for oral argument, April 22, 2021
Unopposed US motion for extension of time to respond to Alaska intervention request, April 26, 2021
Unopposed US mo for xt to respond to AK mo interv
Extension order, April 26, 2021
Alaska amicus, April 26, 2021
US request for additional pages for opposition, May 3, 2021
Young amicus, May 3, 2021
Texas intervention request, May 5, 2021
US opposition to motion for preliminary injunction, May 5, 2021
Notice re parties’ agreement on procedure for preliminary injunction hearing, May 6, 2021
Alaska motion to stay own intervention motion, May 7, 2021
| 05/07/2021 | 36 | ENDORSED ORDER: Alaska moves 35 for a stay. The motion is construed as a motion for leave to amend Alaska’s motion to intervene. The motion is GRANTED. Alaska may amend the motion to intervene no later than May 21, 2021. Notwithstanding any earlier order, the defendants may respond to Alaska’s motion within seven days after Alaska amends (or elects not to amend). Signed by Judge Steven D. Merryday on 5/7/2021. (Entered: 05/07/2021) |
American Society of Travel Advisors amicus request, May 12, 2021
Minute entry, May 12, 2021
US opposition to amicus request, May 14, 2021
Order re mediation, May 18, 2021
Florida preliminary injunction reply, May 19, 2021
US opposition to Texas intervention, May 19, 2021
Parties’ notice re mediation, May 20, 2021
Young motion to supplement amicus, May 24, 2021
US opposition to Young amicus, May 24, 2021
Young reply, May 26, 2021
FL v CDC Young supplemental reply
US request to file supplemental brief, June 2, 2021
FL v CDC US rq file supplemental
Alaska amended motion to intervene, June 2, 2021
FL v CDC Alaska amended interv mo
Plaintiffs’ response to US request, June 2, 2021
Scheduling order for 6/10 hearing, June 4, 2021
US supplemental brief, June 7, 2021
Florida response to supplemental brief, June 9, 2021
US response re Alaska motion, June 9, 2021
Minute entry, June 10, 2021
| 06/10/2021 | 88 | Minute Entry. In Person Proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Anthony E. Porcelli: SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE held on 6/10/2021. (LV) (Entered: 06/11/2021) |
| 06/11/2021 | 85 | Minute Entry. Telephonic Proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Anthony E. Porcelli: SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE held on 6/11/2021. Despite the party’s good faith and concerted efforts, the settlement discussions have concluded and the parties have reached an impasse. (LV) (Entered: 06/11/2021) |
Cruise ship opinion granting preliminary injunction, June 18, 2021
FL v US cruise ship preliminary injunction opinion
US notice of appeal, July 6, 2021
US motion to stay preliminary injunction pending appeal, July 6, 2021
Order denying motion to stay, July 7, 2021
Order putting on hold Alaska and Texas motions to intervene, July 8, 2021
Withdrawal of Alaska motion to intervene, July 8, 2021
| 07/12/2021 | 102 | ENDORSED ORDER: The order at Doc. 101 is VACATED. The following order is SUBSTITUTED: Alaska moves 100 to withdraw the amended motion (Doc. 68) to intervene. The motion is GRANTED, and the motion to intervene is WITHDRAWN. Signed by Judge Steven D. Merryday on 7/12/2021. (Entered: 07/12/2021) |
Eleventh Circuit # 21-12243
US motion for stay and administrative stay, July 7, 2021
Florida opposition to stays, July 12, 2021
US reply supporting stays, July 13, 2021
Order for stay, July 17, 2021
Emergency application to vacate stay, No. 21A5, July 23, 2021
Eleventh Circuit order vacating own stay order, July 23, 2021
Florida emergency motion, July 24, 2021
| 07/24/2021 | 111 | AMENDED ENDORSED ORDER: Florida moves (Doc. 108 and 109) to enforce the preliminary injunction (Doc. 91) against the defendants. No later than 9:00 a.m. EDT on Monday, July 26, 2021, the defendants must respond in writing to Florida’s motion. A hearing will occur on Monday, July 26, 2021, at 12:01 p.m. by electronic means (probably a ZOOM hearing). The parties will receive timely notice of the details of the hearing. Signed by Judge Steven D. Merryday on 7/24/2021. (Entered: 07/24/2021) |
US opposition to emergency motion, July 25, 2021
FL cruise ship US resp to emergency mo
Order deferring ruling, July 26, 2021
FL cruise ship order deferring consideration
Order allowing Texas intervention, July 29, 2021
Order directing Texas to file its complaint, August 2, 2021
Texas complaint in intervention, August 4, 2021
TX cruise ships complaint in interv
Unopposed request for extension of time to answer, August 9, 2021
Order for extension, August 11, 2021
US unopposed motion for extension of time, October 29, 2021
Order extending time, November 2, 2021
[]
US unopposed motion voluntarily to dismiss appeal, January 18, 2022
| 01/19/2022 | ORDER: Motion to voluntarily dismiss appeal filed by Appellants USA, Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Center for Disease Control and Prevention and Health and Human Services is GRANTED by clerk. [9576195-2] [Entered: 01/19/2022 02:47 PM] |
Florida notice of voluntary dismissal, February 10, 2022
Texas notice of voluntary dismissal, February 10, 2022
Order closing case, February 15, 2022
==============
Norwegian Cruise Lines v. Rivkees, No. 1:21-cv-22492 (S.D. Fla., filed July 13, 2021)
Complaint
Motion for preliminary injunction, July 13, 2021
[]
Scheduling order, July 16, 2021
Motion for transfer, July 16, 2021
| 07/18/2021 | 29 | PAPERLESS ORDER. This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Expedited Motion To Transfer 28 . By no later than July 30, 2021, Plaintiffs shall file a response in opposition to the Motion 28 . By no later than August 4, 2021, Defendant may file a reply in support of the Motion 28 . Signed by Judge Kathleen M. Williams on 7/18/2021. (clu) (Entered: 07/18/2021) |
Florida opposition to preliminary injunction, July 27, 2021
[Other exhibits]
Plaintiffs’ reply supporting preliminary injunction, July 30, 2021
Plaintiffs’ opposition to transfer, July 30, 2021
Florida motion to dismiss, August 4, 2021
Florida reply supporting transfer, August 4, 2021
| 08/05/2021 | 41 | PAPERLESS ORDER. The preliminary injunction hearing scheduled for August 6, 2021 at 10:00 AM will be conducted by videoconference. To observe, please use the link: https://www.zoomgov.com/j/1613543192?pwd=RGJGU3ZKVytMbDNxenNmQlUvaVRFdz09 and the Passcode 923561. Interested members of the public are welcome to observe the proceeding.
Observers are reminded of the general prohibition against photographing, recording, live streaming and rebroadcasting of court proceedings. Violation of these prohibitions may result in sanctions, including removal of court issued media credentials, restricted entry to future hearings, denial of entry to future hearings, contempt of court, or any other sanctions deemed necessary by the court. Signed by Judge Kathleen M. Williams on 8/5/2021. (clu) Modified on 8/5/2021 (mso). (Entered: 08/05/2021) |
| 08/06/2021 | 42 | PAPERLESS Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Kathleen M. Williams: Video Zoom Motion Hearing held on 8/6/2021 re: DE # 3 Plaintiff’s MOTION for Preliminary Injunction Plaintiffs’ Expedited Motion for a Preliminary Injunction and Incorporated Memorandum of Law filed by Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings Ltd, NCL ( Bahamas) Ltd., Seven Seas Cruises S. DE R.L. LLC, Oceania Cruises S. De R.L. Court heard oral argument. Matter taken under advisement. Counsel of record present. Court Reporter: Patricia Sanders, 305-523-5548 / Patricia_Sanders@flsd.uscourts.gov. (mso) (Entered: 08/06/2021) |
Order granting preliminary injunction, August 8, 2021
Order denying transfer, August 8, 2021
Rivkees notice of appeal, August 10, 2021
Eleventh Circuit # 21-12729
Norwegian opposition to motion to dismiss, August 18, 2021
Agreement on staying deadlines pending appeal, August 20, 2021
|
08/24/2021 |
51 | PAPERLESS ORDER granting the Parties’ joint motion to stay all deadlines pending appeal 49 . For good cause shown, the motion 49 is GRANTED. This matter is STAYED pending the resolution of Defendant’s appeal of the preliminary injunction 43 to the Eleventh Circuit. The Parties shall file a joint status report regarding further proceedings in this case no later than 30 days after the Eleventh Circuit issues its ruling. Signed by Judge Kathleen M. Williams on 8/24/2021. (clu) (Entered: 08/24/2021) |
Civil appeal statement, August 16, 2021
11C FL civil appeals statement
Norwegian response to civil appeal statement, August 26, 2021
Florida opening brief, October 4, 2021
11C Florida opening brief 10 4
Plaintiffs’ appellee brief, November 17, 2021
11C Norwegian appellee brief 11 17
Florida reply brief, December 8, 2021
| 03/08/2022 | Oral argument scheduled. Argument Date: Wednesday, 05/18/2022 Argument Location: Miami, FL. [Entered: 03/08/2022 09:37 AM] |
Florida supplemental authority (Bahamas), May 6, 2022
11C Norwegian supp auth 5 6 22
Norwegian response to Florida supplemental authority, May 11, 2022
Plaintiffs’ supplemental authority (Ted Cruz), May 17, 2022
| 05/18/2022 | Oral argument held this date. Oral Argument presented by Peter A. Patterson for Appellant State Surgeon General and Derek L. Shaffer for Appellees NCL (Bahamas), Ltd., Seven Seas Cruises S. DE R.L. LLC, NCLH and Oceania Cruises S. De R.L.. [Entered: 05/18/2022 11:09 AM] |
Norwegian suggestion of mootness, October 4, 2022
Opinion, October 6, 2022
Florida response to suggestion of mootness, October 14, 2022
11C Nor FL resp to mootness 10 14 22
Order for supplemental briefing on mootness, October 25, 2022
11C Norw supp br order 10 25 22
Norwegian brief on mootness, November 8, 2022
Florida brief on mootness, November 22, 2022
Norwegian reply brief on mootness, November 29, 2022
11C NL mootness reply 11 29 22
Opinion, December 22, 2022
Stipulation of dismissal, February 21, 2023
| 02/21/2023 | 59 | PAPERLESS ORDER DISMISSING AND CLOSING CASE. THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Parties’ Joint Stipulation of Dismissal (DE 58 ). Upon review of the stipulation and the record, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(B), each party to bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs. All pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT. All hearings, trial settings, and deadlines are CANCELED. This case is CLOSED. Signed by Judge Kathleen M. Williams on 2/21/2023. (nlf) (Entered: 02/21/2023) |
==================
The Title 42 case
Huisha-Huisha v. Mayorkas, No. 1:21-cv-100 (D. D.C.)
Complaint, January 12, 2021
[]
Amended complaint, January 28, 2021
Motion to certify class, January 28, 2021
[]
Motion for preliminary injunction, February 5, 2021
[]
US opposition to class certification and preliminary injunction, February 17, 2021
[]
Joint motion for four week abeyance, February 23, 2021
[]
| 05/17/2021 | MINUTE ORDER granting 106 joint motion to continue to hold in abeyance Plaintiffs’ Motions for Class Certification and Classwide Permanent Injunction. Plaintiffs shall file their reply in support of their motions for class certification and preliminary injunction by no later than May 25, 2021. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 5/17/2021. (lcegs3) (Entered: 05/17/2021) |
[]
| 08/02/2021 | MINUTE ORDER. In view of 112 joint motion to reset briefing schedule, in which the parties indicated that efforts “to resolve or narrow the dispute in this case have reached an impasse,” the parties are DIRECTED to file a joint status report by no later than August 4, 2021 informing the Court whether this case would benefit from referral to a magistrate judge, mediation, or any other form of alternative dispute resolution that can be tailored to the needs of their case. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 8/2/2021. (lcegs3) (Entered: 08/02/2021) |
[]
Reply supporting class certification and preliminary injunction, August 11, 2021
[]
Opinion and order, September 16, 2021
Notice of appeal, September 17, 2021
[]
D.C. Cir. # 21-5200
US emergency motion for stay, September 17, 2021
Scheduling order, September 18, 2021
Plaintiffs’ opposition to stay, September 23, 2021
US reply supporting stay, September 27, 2021
D.C. Circuit stay, September 30, 2021
P.J.E.S. v. Wolf, No. 1:20-cv-2245 (D. D.C.)
[]
Preliminary injunction opinion and order, November 18, 2020
PJES preliminary injunction opinion
US motion for reconsideration, November 25, 2020
| 12/03/2020 | MINUTE ORDER denying the Government’s 82 MOTION for Reconsideration and finding as moot the Government’s 85 MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Declaration. The Government renews its request that the Court stay its preliminary injunction issued on November 18, 2020, contending that, inter alia, (1) given the rise in COVID-19 infections in States along the southern border, “enjoining the CDC Order [that allows for the expulsion of class members pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 265] at this juncture would create or exacerbate conditions conducive to further COVID-19 outbreaks,” Gov’t’s Mot., ECF No. 82 at 9-10; (2) the increase in the number of unaccompanied minors, could lead to “hospital systems in some localities ” to be overwhelmed; id. at 11; and (3) the “recent increases in the number of referrals to” the Office of Refugee Resettlement (“ORR”), during the pandemic, could lead to “greater challenges in accommodating the expected increases in referrals of covered minors,” and potentially force ORR transport class members further inland, id. at 12-15. The Government states that it is “not seeking reconsideration of this Court’s order granting Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction, ECF No. 15, or provisionally granting Plaintiff’s motion to certify a class, ECF No. 2.” Gov’t’s Mot., ECF No. 82 at 4 n.2. In opposition, the Plaintiff argues that “[the Government’s] failure to contest the Court’s merits ruling is an arguably fatal flaw for a stay application and should be determinative here… particularly given [the Government’s] additional failure to contest the irreparable harm to the children.” Pl.’s Opp’n, ECF No. 84 at 5 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). Plaintiff also contends that (1) no class member in ORR custody has required hospitalization due to COVID-19, see id. at 5; (2) the Government’s speculation that there will be an increase in the number of unaccompanied children entering the country “is riddled with inconsistencies and misdirection,” id. at 7; and (3) the Government has “not demonstrated that [U.S. Customs & Border Protection] or ORR facilities lack additional capacity to hold children even if the numbers substantially increase,” id. at 9. In this Court, motions for reconsideration pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are examined under the “standard set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e)”. United States v. Fareri, No. CR 09-54 (EGS), 2018 WL 8754169, at *2 (D.D.C. Oct. 19, 2018) (Sullivan, J.). Under that standard, a Rule 59(e) motion-and in this case a 54(b) motion-“need not be granted unless the district court finds that there is an intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” Id. As the Government is requesting that the Court reconsider its denial of a stay of its November 18, 2020 preliminary injunction, the Court will review the Government’s motion using the factors governing the granting of a stay pending an appeal. A “stay pending [an] appeal is always an extraordinary remedy,” United States v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 449 F. Supp. 2d 988, 990 (D.D.C. 2006) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted); and the “party requesting a stay bears the burden of showing that the circumstances justify an exercise of that discretion,” Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 43334 (2009). In determining whether to grant a stay pending an appeal, a Court must consider “(1) whether the applicant has made a strong showing that [it] is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies.” Nken, 556 U.S. at 34. Of these, the “first two factors of the traditional standard are the most critical.” Id. Here, the Government clearly has not met its burden. Even though the “first two factors of the traditional [stay] standard are the most critical,” id.; the Government does not even consider the first stay factor-likelihood of success on the merits, see generally, Gov’t’s Mot., ECF No. 82-nor does it sufficiently explain how it will be “irreparably injured absent a stay,” see id. (stating only “any increase in the transfer of class members into [border] States’ health care systems is likely to cause irreparable harm to the public”). The Government also fails to address the final two factors- whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding, and where the public interest lies. See generally, Gov’t’s Mot., ECF No. 82. Because the Court finds that the Government did not note any intervening change of controlling law, provide sufficient new evidence concerning the stay factors, or point out any clear error or manifest injustice, see Fareri, 2018 WL 8754169, at *2, it is ORDERED that the Government’s motion for reconsideration, ECF No. 82, is DENIED. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 12/3/2020. (lcegs2) (Entered: 12/03/2020) |
[]
D.C. Circuit # 20-5357
Order for stay, January 29, 2021
Appellants’ opening brief (corrected), February 22, 2021
Joint request to suspend briefing schedule, March 1, 2021
DCC PJES joint mo suspend briefing
====
Masks on airplanes cases
Note: CDC transportation mask mandate cases are now being updated only on …
Sanitation … and other measures
From the 3/30/22 notice in Florida v. Walensky
Health Freedom Defense Fund v. Biden, No. 8:21-cv-1693 (M.D. Fla.) (Mizelle, J.)
Wall v. CDC, No. 6:21-cv-975 (M.D. Fla.) (Byron, J.)
Massie v. CDC, No. 1:22-cv-31 (W.D. Ky.)
Mahwikizi v. CDC, No. 1:21-cv-3467 (N.D. Ill.)
Van Duyne v. CDC, No. 4:22-cv-122 (N.D. Tex.)
Florida v. Walensky, No. 8:22-cv-718 (M.D. Fla.)
===
THE FIRST TEXAS ANTI-MASKS-ON-AIRPLANES CASE
Van Duyne v. Centers for Disease Control, No. 4:22-cv-122 (N.D. Tex., filed Feb. 16, 2022)
Complaint
Van Duyne airplane mask complaint
Motion for preliminary injunction, February 16, 2022
Van Duyne airplane mask PI mo 2 16
Order for meet and confer, February 16, 2022
Van Duyne scheduling order 2 16
Joint status report and briefing schedule, February 23, 2022
Scheduling order, February 23, 2022
Van Duyne scheduling order 2 23
US opposition, March 4, 2022
Van Duyne reply, March 9, 2022
[US response, 3/4, plaintiff reply, 3/9]
Order asking for briefing re trial on merits, March 17, 2022
Van Duyne order asking re trial on merits 3 17
[Opening simultaneous briefs, 3/30; simultaneous response briefs, 4/6]
Order re possible consolidation, March 24, 2022
Van Duyne FRC consol q order 3 24
Plaintiffs’ brief supporting summary judgment, March 30, 2022
Defendants’ opposition, March 30, 2022
[Cross briefs due 4/8, response briefs due 4/15]
Van Duyne response re trial on merits, April 6, 2022
US response re trial on merits, April 6, 2022
Texas response re trial on merits, April 6, 2022
US support for consolidation, April 8, 2022
Van Duyne US support consol 4 8
Van Duyne opposition to consolidation, April 8, 2022
Van Duyne response, April 14, 2022
Van Duyne consol response 4 14
US response, April 15, 2022
Van Duyne US consol response 4 15
Most recent filing by 4/20
Order for briefing re Middle Florida case, April 18, 2022
[Opening briefs, 4/22; responsive briefs, 4/25]
==
THE SECOND TEXAS MASKS-ON-AIRPLANES CASE
Family Research Council Action v. Biden, No. 4:22-cv-209 (N.D. Tex., filed March 23, 2022)
Complaint
Family Research Council complaint
Motion for injunction, and memo, March 31, 2022
Motion for TRO, April 4, 2022
[supporting documents]
US TRO opposition, April 12, 2022
Reply supporting TRO, April 14, 2022
US response re consolidation, April 15, 2022
FRC masks US consol response 4 15
Most recent filing by 4/20
Order for briefing on Middle Florida case, April 18, 2022
[Opening briefs, 4/22; responsive briefs, 4/25]
===
THE KENTUCKY MASKS-ON-AIRPLANES CASE
Massie v. CDC, No. 1:22-cv-31 (W.D. Ky., filed March 14, 2022)
Complaint
| 03/15/2022 | 6 | TEXT ORDER by Chief Judge Greg N. Stivers (EBOC) on 3/15/2022. Pursuant to 28 USC §455, the Court concludes that recusal in this case is required. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is reassigned to the docket of Judge Benjamin Beaton for all further proceedings and disposition, pursuant to General Order 2020-27. Counsel are instructed to change the civil action number to reflect the initials (BJB) in place and instead of the initials (GNS) on all further pleadings.
This Notice of Electronic Filing is the Official ORDER for this entry. No document is attached. cc: Counsel of Record; Case Manager Judge Beaton (TJD) (Entered: 03/15/2022) |
Motion for preliminary injunction, March 23, 2022
| 03/25/2022 | 19 | TEXT ORDER: The Court orders the Defendants to file a response to the Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction (DN 18 ) by April 8, 2022. The Court also orders the parties to confer and submit a joint status report on or before April 8 proposing mutually agreeable dates and times for either a telephonic or in-person status conference or preliminary-injunction hearing, as the parties deem appropriate.
This Notice of Electronic Filing is the Official ORDER for this entry. No document is attached. cc: counsel (JM) (Entered: 03/25/2022) |
Corrected joint status report, April 8, 2022
Massie joint status corrected 4 8
US opposition to preliminary injunction, April 8, 2022
Massie reply, April 15, 2022
Massie notice of additional authority (HFDF), April 18, 2022
===
THE FLORIDA (AND ALASKA) MASKS-ON-AIRPLANES CASE
Florida v. Walensky, No. 8:22-cv-718 (M.D. Fla., filed March 29, 2022)
Complaint
Notice of related actions, March 30, 2022
FL masks notice related actions 3 30
[Status hearing, 4/19]
Status hearing minutes, April 19, 2022
No filings beyond complaint by 4/20
==
EARLIER FLORIDA CASES ABOUT MASKS ON AIRPLANES
Wall v. CDC, No. 6:21-cv-975 (M.D. Fla., filed June 7, 2021
Complaint
[]
[]
Order dismissing complaint with leave to refile, December 18, 2021
[]
Order denying preliminary injunction, March 4, 2022
Wall masks order denying PI 3 4 22
[]
Parties’ most recent filings, by 4/20
Wall opposition to cross-motion for summary judgment, reply supporting summary judgment, April 4, 2022
Wall masks sj reply xsj op 4 4
US reply supporting cross-motion for summary judgment, April 12, 2022
==
Note: CDC transportation mask mandate cases are now only being updated on …
Sanitation … and other measures
Health Freedom Defense Fund v. Biden, No. 8:21-cv-1693 (M.D. Fla., filed July 12, 2021)
Complaint
Plaintiffs’ notice of related action (Wall), July 28, 2021
HfDF masks pltf related action notice Wall 7 28 21
US notice of related action (Wall), September 17, 2021
HFDF US related action Wall 9 17 21
[motion to transfer denied]
[]
US motion for summary judgment, January 18, 2022
Plaintiffs’ summary judgment opposition/cross motion, February 17, 2022
US summary judgment reply/opposition, March 16, 2022
Plaintiffs’ reply supporting cross-motion, March 31, 2022
| 04/18/2022 | 52 | ENDORSED ORDER: Upon review of the briefing and the administrative record, the Court finds that the oral argument previously scheduled for April 29, 2022 (Doc. 47), is unnecessary and cancels it. Signed by Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle on 4/18/2022. (EDB) (Entered: 04/18/2022 |
Summary judgment opinion, April 18, 2022
Judgment, April 18, 2022
==
AN EARLIER ILLINOIS CASE ABOUT MASKS ON AIRPLANES
Mahwikizi v. CDC, No. 1:21-cv-3467 (N.D. Ill., filed June 28, 2021)
Complaint
[]
Order, March 1, 2022
===
+ + +
Airlines for America letter to President Biden, March 23, 2022
3-23-22-A4A-Board-Letter-to-President-Biden-on-Mask-Mandates-and-Testing-Requirements_
Affordable Care Act Litigation 