Robert v. Austin

4 Citing cases

  1. U.S. Navy Seals 1-26 v. Biden

    27 F.4th 336 (5th Cir. 2022)   Cited 36 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding COVID-19 vaccination mandates to be underinclusive when exemptions were given to 17 other military members but denied to plaintiffs seeking religious accommodations

    Two other courts found similar challenges non-justiciable. See Church v. Biden , No. 21-2815 (CKK), ––– F. Supp. 3d ––––, 2021 WL 5179215 (D.D.C. Nov. 8, 2021) ; Robert v. Austin , No. 21-cv-02228-RM-STV, 2022 WL 103374 (D. Colo. Jan. 11, 2022). I. BACKGROUND

  2. Miller v. Austin

    622 F. Supp. 3d 1105 (D. Wyo. 2022)   Cited 1 times

    The United States District Court in Colorado relied on Church in coming to a similar conclusion in Robert v. Austin, No. 21-CV-2228, 2022 WL 103374, at *3 (D. Colo. Jan. 11, 2022). Plaintiffs in that case were members of the military and sued the Secretary of Defense seeking temporary and permanent injunctive relief to prevent them from receiving the COVID-19 vaccination.

  3. Vance v. Wormuth

    Civil Action 3:21-CV-730-CRS (W.D. Ky. Apr. 12, 2022)

    Under Mindes' multi-step inquiry, the case must meet the initial requirements for justiciability that (1) there is an allegation of the deprivation of a constitutional right or an allegation that the military has acted in violation of applicable statutes or its own regulations, and (2) there has been exhaustion of available intraservice corrective measures. In addition to these threshold requirements of Mindes, the Court must find that the dual prerequisites of standing and ripeness are met. As noted in Robert v. Austin, No. 21-cv-02228-RM-STV, 2022 WL 103374 (D.Colo. Jan. 11, 2022), “The doctrines of standing and ripeness substantially overlap in many cases.” S. Utah Wilderness Alliance v. Palma, 707 F.3d 1143, 1157, (10th Cir. 2013).

  4. De Cristo Cano v. Biden

    598 F. Supp. 3d 921 (S.D. Cal. 2022)   Cited 3 times

    Necessarily, because the Court lacks jurisdiction over their unripe claims, these plaintiffs are not entitled to a TRO.Cf.Robert v. Austin , No. 21-CV-02228-RM-STV, 2022 WL 103374, at *3 (D. Colo. Jan. 11, 2022) ("Because Plaintiffs have not established that their claims are justiciable, a fortiori, they cannot establish a likelihood of success on the merits or a clear and unequivocal right to injunctive relief."); Rodden v. Fauci , No. 3:21-CV-317, 571 F.Supp.3d 686, 689 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 27, 2021) ("[I]t is too speculative to say that the plaintiffs who have claimed an exemption [from the Employee Mandate] are in imminent danger of irreparable harm.").