Full text
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
AIR FORCE OFFICER, on behalf of herself
)
and all others similarly situated,
)
)
Case No. 5:22-cv-00009-TES
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
LLOYD J. AUSTIN, III, in his
)
official capacity as Secretary of Defense;
)
FRANK KENDALL, III, in his
)
official capacity as Secretary of the Air Force; and )
ROBERT I. MILLER, in his
)
official capacity as Surgeon General of the
)
Air Force,
)
)
Defendants.
)
PLAINTIFFS’ SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION FOR CLASS-WIDE PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION
Pursuant to Federal Rule Civil Procedure 65, Plaintiff Air Force Officer, joined by
Additional Representatives1 Air Force NCO, Air Force Special Agent, and Air Force Engineer
(collectively, “Plaintiffs”), on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated (collectively,
the “Class”), respectfully request that this Court enter a class-wide preliminary injunction
enjoining Defendants from enforcing certain COVID-19 vaccine mandates—specifically,
Department of Defense’s August 24, 2021 Order and Department of Air Force’s September 3,
2021 Order (collectively, the “Mandates”)2—against Air Force NCO, Air Force Special Agent,
1 See Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint, to Add Three Plaintiff Class
Representatives, and/or for Intervention, filed concurrently herewith.
2 Plaintiff Air Force Officer, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, also seeks
relief as to certain federal civilian employee COVID-19 vaccine mandates—specifically,
President Biden’s September 9, 2021 Executive Order 14043, Department of Defense’s October
1, 2021 Order, and Department of Air Force’s October 8, 2021 Order. See Second Amended
Class Action Complaint. However, those mandates are preliminarily enjoined pursuant to
Case 5:22-cv-00009-TES Document 65 Filed 03/31/22 Page 1 of 4
2
Air Force Engineer or any member of the Class,3 and enjoining Defendants from taking any
adverse action against Air Force NCO, Air Force Special Agent, and Air Force Engineer or any
member of the Class on the basis of this lawsuit or of any member’s request for religious
accommodation related to the Mandates.4
Plaintiffs rely on and incorporate the Memorandum of Law in Support of this motion and
declarations of Air Force NCO, Air Force Special Agent, and Air Force Engineer and exhibits
thereto, filed simultaneously herewith. In addition, Plaintiffs rely on and incorporate Air Force
Officer’s briefing and the declarations in support of her original Motion for Preliminary
Injunction and exhibits thereto [including Doc. 2, 2-1 to 2-17, 40, 40-1, 40-2, 41, 41-1, and 45],
the Second Amended Class Action Complaint, filed simultaneously herewith, and Air Force
Officer’s briefing and the declarations in support of her original Motion for Class Certification
[including Doc. 57, 57-1, 57-2, 57-3, and 57-4].
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that this Court enter a preliminary injunction that
enjoins Defendants from (1) enforcing the Mandates against Air Force NCO, Air Force Special
Agent, and Air Force Engineer or any member of the Class, and (2) taking any adverse action
against Air Force NCO, Air Force Special Agent, and Air Force Engineer or any member of the
another court’s order, Feds. for Med. Freedom v. Biden, --- F. Supp. 3d. ----, 2022 WL 188329,
at *8 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 21, 2022). See February 15 Injunction Order [Doc. 51], p. 2 n.2. Therefore
the present motion does not seek relief as to those federal civilian employee mandates. Plaintiff
Air Force Officer reserves the right to pursue such relief in the future if and as appropriate.
3 The Court has already granted a preliminary injunction in favor of Plaintiff Air Force Officer
individually. [Doc. 51].
4 Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, also seek relief as to
Defendants’ violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. See Second Amended Class Action
Complaint, Count III. The present motion does not seek relief as to this claim. Plaintiffs reserve
the right to pursue such relief in the future if and as appropriate.
Case 5:22-cv-00009-TES Document 65 Filed 03/31/22 Page 2 of 4
3
Class on the basis of this lawsuit or of Plaintiff’s or any member’s request for religious
accommodation related to the Mandates.
Case 5:22-cv-00009-TES Document 65 Filed 03/31/22 Page 3 of 4
4
Dated: March 31, 2022
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Adam S. Hochschild
Stephen Crampton, pro hac vice
Michael R. Hirsh, GA #357220
THOMAS MORE SOCIETY – Senior Counsel
Hirsh Law Office, LLC
PO Box 4506
2295 Towne Lake Parkway
Tupelo, MS 38803
Suite 116-181
(662)255-9439
Woodstock, GA 30189
scrampton@thomasmoresociety.org
(678)653-9907
michael@hirsh.law
Adam S. Hochschild, pro hac vice
Hochschild Law Firm
THOMAS MORE SOCIETY – Special Counsel
PO Box 401
Plainfield, VT 05667
(314)503-0326
adam@hochschildlaw.com
Mary Catherine Hodes, pro hac vice
THOMAS MORE SOCIETY – Special Counsel
112 S. Hanley Rd., Second Floor
Clayton, MO 63105
(314)825-5725
mchodes@thomasmoresociety.org
Michael McHale, pro hac vice
THOMAS MORE SOCIETY – Counsel
10506 Burt Circle, Ste. 110
Omaha, NE 68114
(402)501-8586
mmchale@thomasmoresociety.org
Paul M. Jonna, pro hac vice
LiMandri & Jonna LLP
THOMAS MORE SOCIETY – Special Counsel
P.O. Box 9120
Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92067
(858)759-994
pjonna@limandri.com
Counsel for Plaintiffs
Case 5:22-cv-00009-TES Document 65 Filed 03/31/22 Page 4 of 4