Feds for Medical Freedom (F4MF) v. Biden argued convincingly in its filing to the Supreme Court, why the Justices should not allow for vacatur and a ruling in support of mootness. My first Substack covered that in detail and I encourage you to take time to read through the article.
The synopsis: The Biden administration hopes to strip litigants of lower court wins, so they can mandate another medical intervention.
Although a number of lower courts initially ruled in favor of dismissing cases as moot, it appears there may be a shift in the judicial winds. The Supreme Court has rescheduled the F4MF v. Biden case, which could indicate they are waiting for all of DOJ’s vacatur cases to be fully briefed. DOJ may be seeking vacatur with the National Guard v. Biden case as well.
It could mean we will have to wait until December to get a decision, maybe longer. It also means that the nationwide injunction stays in place and creates legal uncertainty for DOJ. The Biden Administration won’t be able to direct plagiarize Executive Orders (EO) 14042 and 14043.
As I recall, President Biden is no stranger to plagiarism, so maybe they’ll be lazy and we’ll get lucky when they try to implement a second round of invasive mandated medical procedures. I doubt it though.
If the administration is serious about another mandate in the next few months, they will be forced to significantly adjust any requirment, or face being legally stymied before the wet signature drys on the EO. The other obstacle facing DOJ, many cases are providing better arguments in opposition to mootness.
Vanderstelt V. Biden stands in opposition to the contractor vaccine mandate and is an entertaining and hard hitting read. The arguments are strong. The highlights are included below, or you can download the filing and read it at your leisure.
Why didn’t DOJ highlight their legal defeats?
On May 1, 2023, the White House announced that the Administration would “end the COVID-19 vaccine requirement for … Federal contractors” on May 11, 2023, “the same day that the COVID-19 public health emergency ends.” … The announcement did not acknowledge the legal defeats faced by the Contractor Mandate in numerous courts and instead boasted without evidence that “our broader vaccination campaign has saved millions of lives.”
Even after all the failed policy, they defend it.
The new Executive Order neither disclaims power to issue the Contractor Mandate nor acknowledges that the Mandate was found unlawful and enjoined by courts, let alone signals any form of acquiescence or agreement with those rulings. Instead, Executive Order 14099 defended the wisdom of the Contractor Mandate, asserting (again without evidence) that it was “necessary to protect the health and safety of critical workforces serving the American people and to advance the efficiency of Government services during the COVID-19 pandemic.”
Main point from the filing is as follows:
Defendants cannot make the extraordinarily strong showing needed for mootness because they continue to insist on preserving their ability to reimplement the Contractor Mandate in the future by vigorously defending its legality and wisdom.
Please read the full filing at your leisure and sally forth freedom lovers.