Case docket
David G. Donovan, et al. v. Joseph R. Biden, et al. — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, No. 22-35474
Donovan v. Biden — 5 court filings in the archive from U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed between October 24, 2022 and May 12, 2023. Among them: 1 memorandum or brief.
Case facts
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit |
|---|---|
| Filings | 5 public filings |
| Filed | 2022-10-24 – 2023-05-12 |
| Document types | memorandum or brief (1) |
| Original PDFs | 5 of 5 |
Case summary
David G. Donovan and other plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, No. 22-35474, from decisions of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington, No. 4:21-cv-05148-TOR, before District Judge Thomas O. Rice. Their jurisdictional statement records that the district court denied declaratory relief, a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction on December 17, 2021 and dismissed the complaint on May 12, 2022, and that the appeal was filed on June 9, 2022. The appeal challenges Executive Orders 14042 and 14043, which required certain federal contractor employees and federal employees to be vaccinated against COVID-19. After the President revoked both orders effective May 12, 2023, the court ordered supplemental briefing on mootness; the parties took opposing positions.
Case at a glance
| Parties | Plaintiffs-appellants: David G. Donovan and others. Defendants-appellees: Joseph R. Biden and others; the government's supplemental brief and the appellants' supplemental brief style the case Donovan v. Vance |
|---|---|
| Court and docket | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, No. 22-35474, on appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington, No. 4:21-cv-05148-TOR (District Judge Thomas O. Rice). The appellants invoked appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) and district-court jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343 |
| Program | Not named in the filings on this page. The measures at issue are Executive Orders 14042 and 14043, which required certain federal contractor employees and certain federal employees to be vaccinated against COVID-19, and the Safer Federal Workforce Task Force guidance implementing them |
| Claims | As stated in the appellants' issues presented: whether the district court erred in holding the executive orders authorized by the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act, 40 U.S.C. §§ 101 and 121; whether the orders violate the Administrative Procedure Act by serving as a rule requiring notice and comment; and whether they violate the Federal Procurement Policy, 41 U.S.C. § 1707(a), in the issuance of the Safer Federal Workforce Task Force guidance without notice and comment. The appellants also argue that the President exceeded the scope of his authority |
| Disposition or status | Undecided on this page. The appellants' opening brief was filed October 24, 2022, the government's brief for appellees on December 23, 2022 and the appellants' reply on January 23, 2023. The court ordered the parties to submit supplemental briefs on whether the case would become moot if the President rescinded or terminated the vaccine mandates. On May 12, 2023 the government argued the case is moot because the President's executive order of May 9, 2023, effective May 12, revoked the mandates and the Task Force revoked all implementing guidance, and the appellants argued it remains a live case and controversy. No order, opinion or judgment of the Ninth Circuit is among the filings on this page |
| Status checked | 2026-09-23 · against DOJ press releases through 2026-09-22; court docket not yet read |
What is the appeal about?
The appellants' opening brief states that the district court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343, that it denied their motion for declaratory relief, a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction on December 17, 2021 and dismissed the complaint on May 12, 2022, and that they appealed on June 9, 2022 under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). The brief argues that before September 2021 the federal government had never used the Procurement Act or any other authority to mandate vaccination for a civilian population, and that the case remains justiciable and ripe.
What did the government say about mootness?
In a supplemental brief of May 12, 2023 the government stated that the appeal concerns challenges to two executive orders requiring certain federal contractor employees and certain federal employees to be vaccinated against COVID-19; that the White House announced on May 1, 2023 that the requirements would end at the end of the day on May 11, 2023; that the President issued an executive order on May 9, 2023, effective May 12, revoking those orders and providing that agency policies premised on them may no longer be enforced; and that the Safer Federal Workforce Task Force had revoked all implementing guidance. It concluded that the case is moot, that no exception to the mootness doctrine applies, and that the court should dismiss the appeal.
What did the appellants say about mootness?
In a supplemental brief of the same date the appellants stated that the matter is not moot and remains a live case and controversy notwithstanding the announced end of the nationwide COVID-19 state of emergency on May 11, 2023. They relied on Tandon v. Newsom for the proposition that withdrawal or modification of a COVID restriction during litigation does not necessarily moot a case where applicants remain under a constant threat that officials will reinstate the restrictions, and argued that they remain at risk of negative employment action up to termination and that violation of individual religious rights is a compensable injury.
Summary written from the documents on this page; every sentence is sourced.
Filings
5 public filings from this case, in filing-date order.
Court, dates and docket numbers are as recorded on the filings.