Court filing
Missouri Edmo 4 21 Cv 01300 8Th 21 3725 Doc 060 Att 0
Filed June 7, 2023 in Federal Contractor Mandates; one of 57 filings from this case.
Record facts
| Court | United States Court Of Appeals, For The Eighth Circuit |
|---|---|
| Filed | 2023-06-07 |
United States Court Of Appeals, For The Eighth Circuit · No. 4:21-cv-01300-JSD · Doc. 60 · 2023-06-07 · Docket on CourtListener
Full text
United States Court of Appeals
For The Eighth Circuit
Thomas F. Eagleton U.S. Courthouse
111 South 10th Street, Room 24.329
St. Louis, Missouri 63102
Michael E. Gans
Clerk of Court
VOICE (314) 244-2400
FAX (314) 244-2780
www.ca8.uscourts.gov
June 07, 2023
Ms. Anna O. Mohan
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Appellate Section
Room 7533
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20530-0000
RE: 22-1104 State of Missouri, et al v. Joseph Biden, Jr., et al
Dear Counsel:
The court today issued an opinion in this case. Judgment in accordance with the opinion
was also entered today.
Please review Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and the Eighth Circuit Rules on post-
submission procedure to ensure that any contemplated filing is timely and in compliance with the
rules. Note particularly that petitions for rehearing and petitions for rehearing en banc must be
received in the clerk's office within 45 days of the date of the entry of judgment. Counsel-filed
petitions must be filed electronically in CM/ECF. Paper copies are not required. Except as
provided by Rule 25(a)(2)(iii) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, no grace period for
mailing is allowed. Any petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc which is not
received within the 45 day period for filing permitted by FRAP 40 may be denied as untimely.
Michael E. Gans
Clerk of Court
HAG
Enclosure(s)
cc:
Ms. Vinita Andrapalliyal
Mr. Zach A. Avallone
Ms. Natalie Christmas
Clerk, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri
Mr. Christian Brian Corrigan
Mr. Matthew Frederick
Mr. Anthony J. Galdieri
Ms. Gabriela Gonzalez-Araiza
Mr. Daryl L. Joseffer
Mr. Scott Allen Keller
Appellate Case: 22-1104 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/07/2023 Entry ID: 5284525
Case: 4:21-cv-01300-JSD Doc. #: 60 Filed: 06/07/23 Page: 1 of 5 PageID #: 1314
Ms. Maria Ann Lanahan
Mr. Samuel Paul Langholz
Mr. Steven P. Lehotsky
Ms. Stephanie A. Maloney
Mr. David M. McVey
Ms. Cori Mills
Mr. David Peters
Mr. Matthew A Sagsveen
Mr. Ryan Schelhaas
Mr. Mark B. Stern
District Court/Agency Case Number(s): 4:21-cv-01300-DDN
Appellate Case: 22-1104 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/07/2023 Entry ID: 5284525
Case: 4:21-cv-01300-JSD Doc. #: 60 Filed: 06/07/23 Page: 2 of 5 PageID #: 1315
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 22-1104
___________________________
State of Missouri; State of Nebraska; State of Alaska; State of Arkansas;
State of Iowa; State of Montana; State of New Hampshire; State of North Dakota;
State of South Dakota; State of Wyoming
Plaintiffs - Appellees
v.
Joseph R. Biden, Jr., in his official capacity as the President of the United States of
America; United States of America; The Office of Personnel Management; Kiran
Ahuja, in her official capacity as director of the Office of Personnel Management
and as co-chair of the Safer Federal Workforce Task Force; General Services
Administration; Robin Carnahan, in her official capacity as administrator of the
General Services Administration and as co-chair of the Safer Federal Workforce
Task Force; Office of Management and Budget; Shalanda Young, in her official
capacity as acting Director of the Office of Management and Budget and as a
member of the Safer Federal Workforce Task Force; Safer Federal Workforce Task
Force; Jeffrey Zients, in his official capacity as co-chair of the Safer Federal
Workforce Task Force and COVID-19 Response Coordinator; Federal Acquisition
Regulatory Council; Lesley A. Field, in her official capacity as Acting
Administrator for Federal Procurement, Office of Management and Budget; John
M. Tenaglia, in his official capacity as Principal Director of Defense Pricing and
Contracting, Department of Defense; Jeffrey A. Koses, in his official capacity as
Senior Procurement Executive & Deputy Chief Acquisition Officer, General
Services Administration; Karla S. Jackson, in her official capacity as Assistant
Administrator for Procurement, National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Defendants - Appellants
------------------------------
Appellate Case: 22-1104 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/07/2023 Entry ID: 5284525
Case: 4:21-cv-01300-JSD Doc. #: 60 Filed: 06/07/23 Page: 3 of 5 PageID #: 1316
-2-
State of Florida; State of Arizona; State of Georgia; State of Idaho; State of
Kansas; State of Kentucky; State of Louisiana; State of Ohio; State of Oklahoma;
State of South Carolina; State of Tennessee; State of Texas; State of Utah; State of
West Virginia; Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America
Amici on Behalf of Appellees
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri
____________
Submitted: September 21, 2022
Filed: June 7, 2023
[Unpublished]
____________
Before SMITH, Chief Judge, KELLY and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
By executive order and related agency action, the President of the United
States and other federal Executive Branch officials sought to contractually obligate
all federal contractors and subcontractors to ensure their employees were fully
vaccinated against COVID-19. See Executive Order 14042, 86 Fed. Reg. 50,985
(Sept. 9, 2021) (hereinafter “EO 14042”); Office of Management and Budget Notice
of Determination, 86 Fed. Reg. 63418-01 (Nov. 16, 2021). The district court
preliminarily enjoined the federal officials from enforcing the contractor vaccine
mandate within the plaintiff States after deciding the States were likely to prevail on
the merits of their claim that EO 14042 exceeded the President’s authority. The
government appealed, seeking reversal of the district court’s preliminary injunction.
On May 9, 2023, the President issued an executive order revoking EO 14042,
to be effective on May 12, 2023. See Exec. Order No. 14099 §§ 2, 3, 88 Fed. Reg.
30,891, 30,891 (May 15, 2012) (“Revocation EO”). The Revocation EO explained
Appellate Case: 22-1104 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/07/2023 Entry ID: 5284525
Case: 4:21-cv-01300-JSD Doc. #: 60 Filed: 06/07/23 Page: 4 of 5 PageID #: 1317
-3-
that “we no longer need . . . federally specified safety protocols for Federal
contractors.” Id. § 1. The Revocation EO further specified that “[a]gency policies
adopted to implement [EO 14042] . . . , to the extent such policies are premised on
th[at] order[], no longer may be enforced and shall be rescinded consistent with
applicable law.” Id. § 2.
Based on the Revocation EO, the federal officials filed an unopposed motion
to voluntarily dismiss the appeal, explaining the only relief from this court they had
sought was the reversal or narrowing of the preliminary injunction barring
enforcement of EO 14042. Because EO 14042 “and its accompanying guidance
have been revoked” and “can no longer be enforced,” the federal officials
acknowledge the purpose of their appeal “no longer exists.” We agree. As it is no
longer possible to effectuate the relief requested, we conclude this appeal has
become moot and dismiss it as such. The case is remanded to the district court for
further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
______________________________
Appellate Case: 22-1104 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/07/2023 Entry ID: 5284525
Case: 4:21-cv-01300-JSD Doc. #: 60 Filed: 06/07/23 Page: 5 of 5 PageID #: 1318File and source
- File
- Missouri_EDMO_4-21-cv-01300_8th-21-3725__doc-060__att-0.pdf
- Size
- 243,891 bytes
- SHA-256
- 0bd4748bd2ebcecedbfa18f79ef11405df45524fc80b9e8d2bc67358dfc23fbf
- Original
- storage.courtlistener.com