Opinion
22-56094
06-17-2024
CORAZON DE CRISTO CANO; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. JOSEPH R. BIDEN, President of the United States; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Submitted June 7, 2024 [**] Pasadena, California
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Cathy Ann Bencivengo, District Judge, Presiding D.C. No. 3:22-cv-00193-CAB-AHG
Before: M. SMITH and BADE, Circuit Judges, and FITZWATER, [***] District Judge.
MEMORANDUM [*]
Plaintiff-Appellants are a group of individual employees who filed suit to challenge vaccination requirements in two executive orders issued at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic: Executive Order 14,042 and Executive Order 14,043.The district court denied Plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order and dismissed their claims. Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here, except as necessary to provide context to our ruling. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1291, and we dismiss in part, and affirm in part.
This Executive Order directed federal agencies to include in certain contracts a clause requiring contractor employees to follow COVID-19 safety protocols.
This Executive Order directed federal agencies to require certain federal employees be vaccinated against COVID-19 unless a legally required exception applied.
1. This case is moot as to those plaintiffs who have not experienced any adverse employment actions as a result of the Executive Orders, because those Orders have since been revoked. See Donovan v. Vance, 70 F.4th 1167, 1171-72 (9th Cir. 2023); Exec. Order No. 14,099, 88 Fed.Reg. 30,891, 30,891 (May 9, 2023). The Executive Order revoking the challenged orders specifically stated that "[a]gency policies adopted to implement Executive Order 14042 or Executive Order 14043, to the extent such policies are premised on those orders, no longer may be enforced and shall be rescinded consistent with applicable law." 88 Fed.Reg. at 30,891. Because "[w]e cannot provide relief from [Executive Orders] and exemption processes that no longer exist," this matter is dismissed as moot as to those plaintiffs. Vance, 70 F.4th at 1172.
2. As to the remaining thirteen plaintiffs who allege to have experienced adverse employment actions, we affirm the district court's determination that those individuals lack standing. To establish standing, a party must demonstrate that any alleged injury "would likely be redressed by judicial relief." TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. 413, 423 (2021). Plaintiffs have failed to make this showing because they did not name their employers as defendants, but rather federal officials who cannot reinstate them. They have thus failed to establish "the irreducible constitutional minimum of standing." Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992).
DISMISSED IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART.
[*] This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
[**] The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
[***] The Honorable Sidney A. Fitzwater, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Texas, sitting by designation.