Corazon De Cristo Cano v. Joseph Biden

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: June 17, 2024
• Docket: 22-56094
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 17 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CORAZON DE CRISTO CANO; et al., No. 22-56094

Plaintiffs-Appellants, D.C. No. 3:22-cv-00193-CAB-AHG v.

JOSEPH R. BIDEN, President of the United MEMORANDUM* States; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Cathy Ann Bencivengo, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 7, 2024** Pasadena, California

Before: M. SMITH and BADE, Circuit Judges, and FITZWATER,*** District Judge.

Plaintiff-Appellants are a group of individual employees who filed suit to

* 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. challenge vaccination requirements in two executive orders issued at the height of

the COVID-19 pandemic: Executive Order 14,0421 and Executive Order 14,043.2

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.

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Orders have since been revoked.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may be enforced and shall be rescinded consistent with applicable law.” 88 Fed.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

1 This Executive Order directed federal agencies to include in certain contracts a clause requiring contractor employees to follow COVID-19 safety protocols. 2 This Executive Order directed federal agencies to require certain federal employees be vaccinated against COVID-19 unless a legally required exception applied.

2 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.