• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
Active Filters1
7 results

Hunter Doster, et al v. Frank Kendall, et al

Docket 22-3702, U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit (Aug. 16, 2022)
Statutory Actions - Other (Appeals)
Case Type2890 Statutory Actions - Other
Tags2890 Statutory Actions, Other, 2890 Statutory Actions, Other
Plaintiff - Appellee HUNTER DOSTER
Plaintiff - Appellee JASON ANDERSON
Plaintiff - Appellee MCKENNA COLANTANIO
...
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

No. 83 ORDER filed: The petition for en banc rehearing [60] is DENIED

Document Hunter Doster, et al v. Frank Kendall, et al, 22-3702, No. 83 (6th Cir. Apr. 17, 2023)
Motion for RehearingDenied
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC: Casen B. Ross, Charles W. Scarborough, Daniel Winik, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for
ON RESPONSE: CHRIS WIEST, ATTY AT LAW, PLLC, Crestview Hills, Kentucky, Aaron Siri, Elizabeth A. Brehm, Wendy Cox, SIRI AND GLIMSTAD LLP, New York, New York, Thomas B. Bruns, BRUNS CONNELL VOLLMAR & ARMSTRONG, Cincinnati, Ohio, for Appellees.
In this case, our opinions will stand as a caution against violating the Free Exercise rights of men and women in uniform—which, by all appearances, is what the Air Force did here.
After a panel of this court affirmed the district court’s judgment preliminarily enjoining the Air Force from enforcing its vaccine mandate—but before the case was returned to the district court—Congress enacted the James M. Inhofe National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023 (“NDAA”), which ordered the Secretary of Defense to rescind the military’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate.
I would therefore grant the petition for rehearing en banc, which would have the normal effect of vacating the panel’s opinion, and hold that Congress’s action mooted the pending appeals of the district court’s preliminary-injunction orders.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 56 OPINION and JUDGMENT filed : AFFIRMED

Document Hunter Doster, et al v. Frank Kendall, et al, 22-3702, No. 56 (6th Cir. Nov. 29, 2022)
Motion for Judgment
It explains that regular testing may catch an infection too late, Appellants’ Br., No. 22-3497, at 41, that the science remains unclear over the protection from “natural immunity,” id. at 42, that “masking” depends on the “wearer’s behavior” and does not reduce the risk of bad health outcomes, id. at 43, and that those who must deploy or work in close contact cannot isolate, id.
Two Plaintiffs (Connor McCormick and Alex Ramsperger) felt compelled to travel to Mexico at personal expense to take one such FDA-unapproved vaccine (Covaxin) because the Air Force threatened to cancel their pilot training.
As a matter of historical practice, preliminary injunctions have typically sought merely to preserve the “status quo” by stopping a defendant’s threatened conduct from causing (irreparable) harm until the court has a meaningful chance to resolve the case on the merits.
A district court enjoys wide latitude when crafting the scope of such temporary relief to fit the equities of a case, Trump v. Int’l Refugee Assistance Project, 137 S. Ct. 2080, 2087 (2017) (per curiam), and we review its choices for an abuse of discretion, Ne.
Under these standards, the Air Force’s bare-bones argument does nothing to show that the district court abused its discretion by temporarily prohibiting it from engaging in “any disciplinary or separation measures against the members of the Class for their refusal to receive the COVID-19 vaccine[.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 56 OPINION and JUDGMENT filed : AFFIRMED

Document Hunter Doster, et al v. Frank Kendall, et al, 22-3702, No. 56 (6th Cir. Nov. 29, 2022)
Motion for Judgment
It explains that regular testing may catch an infection too late, Appellants’ Br., No. 22-3497, at 41, that the science remains unclear over the protection from “natural immunity,” id. at 42, that “masking” depends on the “wearer’s behavior” and does not reduce the risk of bad health outcomes, id. at 43, and that those who must deploy or work in close contact cannot isolate, id.
Two Plaintiffs (Connor McCormick and Alex Ramsperger) felt compelled to travel to Mexico at personal expense to take one such FDA-unapproved vaccine (Covaxin) because the Air Force threatened to cancel their pilot training.
As a matter of historical practice, preliminary injunctions have typically sought merely to preserve the “status quo” by stopping a defendant’s threatened conduct from causing (irreparable) harm until the court has a meaningful chance to resolve the case on the merits.
A district court enjoys wide latitude when crafting the scope of such temporary relief to fit the equities of a case, Trump v. Int’l Refugee Assistance Project, 137 S. Ct. 2080, 2087 (2017) (per curiam), and we review its choices for an abuse of discretion, Ne.
Under these standards, the Air Force’s bare-bones argument does nothing to show that the district court abused its discretion by temporarily prohibiting it from engaging in “any disciplinary or separation measures against the members of the Class for their refusal to receive the COVID-19 vaccine[.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 22 ORDER filed: The motion for an emergency stay [8] is DENIED

Document Hunter Doster, et al v. Frank Kendall, et al, 22-3702, No. 22 (6th Cir. Sep. 9, 2022)
Motion to StayDenied
Second, the Department asserts that “none of the named plaintiffs is a cadet or member of the national guard, and thus they lack standing to challenge requirements applied to those groups.” Gov’t Br. at 15.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

ORDER filed: The motion for an emergency stay [8] is DENIED

Document Hunter Doster, et al v. Frank Kendall, et al, 22-3702 (6th Cir. Sep. 9, 2022)
Motion to StayDenied
Second, the Department asserts that “none of the named plaintiffs is a cadet or member of the national guard, and thus they lack standing to challenge requirements applied to those groups.” Gov’t Br. at 15.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 21 RESPONSE in opposition filed regarding a motion, [20]; previously filed by Mr. Christopher ...

Document Hunter Doster, et al v. Frank Kendall, et al, 22-3702, No. 21 (6th Cir. Sep. 8, 2022)
On March 24, 2022, the district court preliminarily enjoined the enforcement of the requirement as to the 18 plaintiffs, forbidding the Air Force from “taking any disciplinary or separation measures against the [named] [p]laintiffs … for their refusal to get vaccinated for COVID-19 due to their sincerely held religious beliefs,” but the court did not prohibit the Air Force from considering plaintiffs’ vaccination status in “mak[ing] operational decisions, including deployability decisions.” Order, R. 47, PageID# 3201, 3203.
Meanwhile, plaintiffs had moved to certify a class of all Air Force service members who requested a religious exemption from the COVID-19 vaccination requirement and sought a class-wide preliminary injunction.
On August 19, the district court denied the stay motion, but (among other things) purported to modify its preliminary injunction in certain respects, for example, making it inapplicable to newly enlisted service members or commissioning new officers.
The first appeal concerns the merits of the preliminary injunction that the district court issued as to 18 individual plaintiffs, including the threshold jurisdictional question whether plaintiffs’ claims are justiciable under Harkness v. Secretary of the Navy, 858 F.3d 437 (6th Cir. 2017).
Attorneys, Appellate Staff Civil Division, Room 7533 U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, D.C. 20530 Counsel for Defendants-Appellants Case: 22-3702 Document: 21 Filed: 09/08/2022 Page: 9
cite Cite Document
Analyze

Can’t find a case you think should be here?

Use our supplemental search tool to find dockets that you may not see here. Information on Fees

Start a Supplemental Search