State of Missouri v. Joseph R. Biden, Jr.

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 22-1104
___________________________
State of Missouri; State of Nebraska; State of Alaska; State of Arkansas;
State of Iowa; State of Montana; State of New Hampshire; State of North Dakota;
State of South Dakota; State of Wyoming
Plaintiffs - Appellees
v.
Joseph R. Biden, Jr., in his official capacity as the President of the United States of
America; United States of America; The Office of Personnel Management; Kiran
Ahuja, in her official capacity as director of the Office of Personnel Management
and as co-chair of the Safer Federal Workforce Task Force; General Services
Administration; Robin Carnahan, in her official capacity as administrator of the
General Services Administration and as co-chair of the Safer Federal Workforce
Task Force; Office of Management and Budget; Shalanda Young, in her official
capacity as acting Director of the Office of Management and Budget and as a
member of the Safer Federal Workforce Task Force; Safer Federal Workforce Task
Force; Jeffrey Zients, in his official capacity as co-chair of the Safer Federal
Workforce Task Force and COVID-19 Response Coordinator; Federal Acquisition
Regulatory Council; Lesley A. Field, in her official capacity as Acting
Administrator for Federal Procurement, Office of Management and Budget; John
M. Tenaglia, in his official capacity as Principal Director of Defense Pricing and
Contracting, Department of Defense; Jeffrey A. Koses, in his official capacity as
Senior Procurement Executive & Deputy Chief Acquisition Officer, General
Services Administration; Karla S. Jackson, in her official capacity as Assistant
Administrator for Procurement, National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Defendants - Appellants
------------------------------

-- 1 of 3 --

-2-
State of Florida; State of Arizona; State of Georgia; State of Idaho; State of
Kansas; State of Kentucky; State of Louisiana; State of Ohio; State of Oklahoma;
State of South Carolina; State of Tennessee; State of Texas; State of Utah; State of
West Virginia; Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America
Amici on Behalf of Appellees
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri
____________
Submitted: September 21, 2022
Filed: June 7, 2023
[Unpublished]
____________
Before SMITH, Chief Judge, KELLY and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
By executive order and related agency action, the President of the United
States and other federal Executive Branch officials sought to contractually obligate
all federal contractors and subcontractors to ensure their employees were fully
vaccinated against COVID-19. See Executive Order 14042, 86 Fed. Reg. 50,985
(Sept. 9, 2021) (hereinafter “EO 14042”); Office of Management and Budget Notice
of Determination, 86 Fed. Reg. 63418-01 (Nov. 16, 2021). The district court
preliminarily enjoined the federal officials from enforcing the contractor vaccine
mandate within the plaintiff States after deciding the States were likely to prevail on
the merits of their claim that EO 14042 exceeded the President’s authority. The
government appealed, seeking reversal of the district court’s preliminary injunction.
On May 9, 2023, the President issued an executive order revoking EO 14042,
to be effective on May 12, 2023. See Exec. Order No. 14099 §§ 2, 3, 88 Fed. Reg.
30,891, 30,891 (May 15, 2023) (“Revocation EO”). The Revocation EO explained

-- 2 of 3 --

-3-
that “we no longer need . . . federally specified safety protocols for Federal
contractors.” Id. § 1. The Revocation EO further specified that “[a]gency policies
adopted to implement [EO 14042] . . . , to the extent such policies are premised on
th[at] order[], no longer may be enforced and shall be rescinded consistent with
applicable law.” Id. § 2.
Based on the Revocation EO, the federal officials filed an unopposed motion
to voluntarily dismiss the appeal, explaining the only relief from this court they had
sought was the reversal or narrowing of the preliminary injunction barring
enforcement of EO 14042. Because EO 14042 “and its accompanying guidance
have been revoked” and “can no longer be enforced,” the federal officials
acknowledge the purpose of their appeal “no longer exists.” We agree. As it is no
longer possible to effectuate the relief requested, we conclude this appeal has
become moot and dismiss it as such. The case is remanded to the district court for
further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
______________________________

-- 3 of 3 --