Supreme Court Wipes Out Three Rulings Rejecting Federal COVID Vaccine Mandate

• by Carolyn Hendler, JD

• Published December 26, 2023
• Federal & State Courts

+ Share This Article

The U.S. Supreme Court vacated the rulings in three lower court cases that had challenged the Biden administration’s federal COVID-19 vaccine mandate for federal agency employees and military service personnel. The decision by the nation’s highest court to grant the Biden administration’s request to set aside the previous judicial rulings rejecting a federal COVID vaccine mandate erases the legal precedent set by the lower courts.

The Appellate courts were split in their decisions about the COVID vaccine mandate with those challenging the federal vaccine mandate succeeding in some cases and the Biden administration prevailing in other cases.

The Supreme Court majority, with Justice Kentanji Brown Jackson dissenting, instructed the lower court to dismiss the cases as moot after the vaccine mandates were rescinded. By wiping out the historical record, the Supreme Court has ensured that any legal challenges to future vaccine mandates will be cases of first impression without precedent.^{1 2}

Lower Court Rulings on COVID Vaccine Mandate Were Conflicting

The rulings in the lower court cases that were vacated by the Supreme Court ruling includes a case brought by the organization Feds for Freedom, whose members were challenging the Biden administration’s vaccine mandate for federal agency employees. In this case, the Appeals court agreed with the district court ruling, which issued a preliminary injunction against the government finding that the court system was the proper venue for the dispute and that the president did not have the authority to implement the vaccine mandate.³

The second case involved a federal worker who argued a previous COVID illness left him with immunity from the virus and, therefore, he should be exempt from having to get the vaccine and that the mandate exceeded the President’s authority. The Appeals court sided with the Biden administration’s defense, finding that the employee needed to go through Merit Systems Protection Board before bringing a lawsuit.⁴

In the final case, a federal district court in Ohio temporarily blocked the federal vaccine mandate for U.S. Air Force service members who objected to the vaccine on religious grounds and prevented the military from taking disciplinary action against them.^{5 6}

Biden Administration Seeks to Vacate Lower Court Rulings Rejecting COVID Vaccine Mandate

The Biden administration, along with one federal employee plaintiff who lost at the Appellate level, asked the Supreme Court to issue a Munsingwear vacatur, which would wipe the lower court rulings due to the issue being moot. The parties challenging the Biden administration claimed that a Munsingwear vacatur ruling would not be an appropriate or equitable remedy as the Biden administration chose to make its own case moot by rescinding the vaccine requirement.⁷

A Muningswear vacatur is an equitable remedy that may be issued by the Supreme Court when a case pending review by the highest court becomes moot, which prevents an appellate review of the decision. An equitable doctrine is typically awarded when a legal remedy such as monetary damages is not sufficient. Equitable doctrines include injunctions in which a party is ordered to do or stop doing a specific action, specific performance where a party is required to fulfill its promise as near as possible, or vacatur, which sets aside a judgment.⁸

The Supreme Court explained that a Musingwear vacatur is…

…. the established practice of the Court in dealing with a civil case from a court in the federal system which has become moot while on its way here or pending our decision on the merits is to reverse or vacate the judgment below and remand with a direction to dismiss.⁹

 However, there are a number of exceptions to this equitable doctrine, such as when the party seeking the vacatur is the party responsible for the case becoming moot. In U.S. Bancorp Mortgage Co. v. Bonner Mall Partnership, the Supreme Court found:

Equitable principles have always been implicit in this Court’s exercise of the vacatur power, and the principal equitable factor to which the Court has looked is whether the party seeking vacatur caused the mootness by voluntary action.¹⁰

The parties arguing against the issuing of a Munsingwear vacatur said:

Petitioners ask this Court to endorse a ‘heads we win, tails you get vacated’ version of Munsingwear, where they can litigate to the hilt in both district and circuit court and—only if they lose—then decline to seek substantive review from this Court and instead moot the case and ask this Court to erase the circuit court loss from the books.¹¹

The Biden administration argued that the vaccine mandate was rescinded due to changing public health circumstances and not as a way to erase the courts record on vaccine mandates.¹²

One Supreme Court Justice Dissents from Ruling Upholding Federal COVID Vaccine Mandate

The unsigned Supreme Court decision vacated the rulings against the mandates and ordered the lower court to vacate the preliminary injunction against the Biden administration as moot¹³ Only one Justice, Justice Jackson explained the decision.¹⁴ She agreed with the other justices that the lower court ruling should be vacated in one decision and dissented in the other two cases, explaining that the government failed to “establish equitable entitlement” to the vacatur.¹⁵

In a recent case, Justice Jackson argued in a dissenting opinion that the Supreme Court may vacate a lower court’s rulings in a case that has become moot when an unfair result is faced by the losing party who can’t appeal the decision. She explained that it is an exceptional remedy that should only be granted when equity demands it.¹⁶

Justice Jackson wrote:

Later, this Court clarified that this “Munsingwear vacatur” remedy is available only in “extraordinary” or “exceptional” cases where a party meets the burden of demonstrating equitable entitlement to vacatur in an otherwise moot case.¹⁷

Justice Jackson further clarified that the court has long recognized that a Munsingwear vacatur is generally not a fair ruling when the party requesting the vacatur, “played a role in rendering the case moot.”

Justice Jackson wrote:

As a general matter, I believe that a party who claims equitable entitlement to vacatur must explain what harm—other than having to accept the law as the lower court stated it—flows from the inability to appeal the lower court decision.¹⁸

Ultimately, Justice Jackson did not find that the government, “established equitable entitlement” to the vacatur and was not warranted in two of the three cases.¹⁹

---

If you would like to receive an e-mail notice of the most recent articles published in The Vaccine Reaction each week, click here.

Click here to view Reference