Defendants' Response to the December 16, 2020 Order — Terkel v. CDC (E.D. Tex.)

Record facts

Full text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 
TYLER DIVISION 
 
LAUREN TERKEL, et al., 
 
      Plaintiffs, 
 
v. 
 
CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND 
PREVENTION, et al., 
 
      Defendants. 
 
 
 
 
 Case No. 6:20-cv-564-JCB 
 
  
 
 
DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO THE COURT’S  
DECEMBER 16, 2020 ORDER 
 
 
Pursuant to the Court’s Order of December 16, 2020, see ECF No. 30, Defendants respectfully 
notify the Court that, on December 21, 2020, Congress passed the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 
2021.  See Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, H.R. 133, 116th Cong. (as passed by House, 
Dec. 21, 2020).  Section 502 of that Act provides: 
The order issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention under section 361 
of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 264), entitled ‘‘Temporary Halt in 
Residential Evictions To Prevent the Further Spread of COVID–19’’ (85 Fed. Reg. 
55292 (September 4, 2020) is extended through January 31, 2021, notwithstanding the 
effective dates specified in such Order. 
 
Defendants will promptly notify the Court should the Act become law. 
 
In the event the Act were not to become law by December 31, 2020, and the Order were to 
expire by its own terms on that date, see Temporary Halt in Residential Evictions To Prevent the 
Further Spread of COVID-19, 85 Fed. Reg. 55292, 55297 (Sept. 4, 2020), Plaintiffs’ challenge would 
be moot, see Spell v. Edwards, 962 F.3d 175, 179 (5th Cir. 2020) (holding that where COVID-19 “stay-
at-home orders expired by their own terms . . . plaintiffs’ request that we enjoin them [was] therefore 
moot”); see also, e.g., Trump v. Int’l Refugee Assistance, 138 S. Ct. 353 (2017) (vacating judgment with 

2 
 
instructions to dismiss as moot challenge to provision of Executive Order that “expired on its own 
terms” and thus “no longer present[ed] a live case or controversy” (quotation marks and citation 
omitted)); Burke v. Barnes, 479 U.S. 361, 363 (1987) (holding that petitioners’ claims “were mooted” 
when bill at issue “expired by its own terms”).  In the meantime, there is no cause for the Court to 
rush a decision on Plaintiffs’ claims.  See, e.g., Danville Christian Acad. v. Beshear, --- S. Ct. ---, No. 20A96, 
2020 WL 7395433, at *1 (U.S. Dec. 17, 2020) (denying without prejudice plaintiffs’ application to 
vacate stay of preliminary injunction of COVID-19 school-closure order on First Amendment 
grounds, given “all of the circumstances, especially the timing and the impending expiration of the 
Order”). 
Dated:  December 23, 2020 
Respectfully submitted, 
 
JEFFREY BOSSERT CLARK 
Acting Assistant Attorney General 
 
ERIC BECKENHAUER 
Assistant Director, Federal Programs Branch 
 
/s/ Leslie Cooper Vigen            
LESLIE COOPER VIGEN 
Trial Attorney (DC Bar No. 1019782) 
STEVEN A. MYERS 
Senior Trial Counsel (NY Bar No. 4823043) 
United States Department of Justice 
Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 
1100 L Street, NW 
Washington, DC 20005 
Tel:  (202) 305-0727 
Fax:  (202) 616-8470 
E-mail:  leslie.vigen@usdoj.gov 
 
Counsel for Defendants

 
 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
I hereby certify I served this document today by filing it using the Court’s CM/ECF system, 
which will automatically notify all counsel of record. 
Dated:  December 23, 2020 
 
 
/s/ Leslie Cooper Vigen 
 
Trial Attorney

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.txed.201598.33.0.pdf

Size

98,331 bytes

SHA-256

479094bb3acec9dc300a2533c515d2214126348ec6f44163180be7dfd924d9f3

Our copy

gov.uscourts.txed.201598.33.0.pdf

Original

archive.org