Filed Date: March 29, 2022
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
This is a case where states challenged the power and authority of the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), the Department fo Health and Human Services (DHHS), and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), in light of the transportation mask mandates imposed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Throughout the pandemic, the CDC had relied on 42 U.S.C. § 264(a) -- a statute broadly conveying power to the CDC to "prevent the introduction, transmission, or spread of communicable diseases" -- to impose mandates, prevent evictions, and stop high-spread industries (like cruise ships). On February 21, 2021, the CDC issued the mask mandate requiring individuals to wear masks, with limited exceptions, in "transportation hubs" and when "traveling on conveyances into and within the United States," effectively mandating masks on most planes, trains, road vehicles, and other vessels.
On March 29, 2022, the plaintiffs, 21 states filed this suit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the transportation mask mandate, which had been recently extended through April 18. Represented by their respective attorney or solicitor generals, the plaintiff states claimed violations of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), violation of 42 C.F.R. § 70.2, and various Constitutional violations. The plaintiffs requested the court to hold the mask mandate as unlawful and set it aside, issue a permanent injunction from enforcing the mask mandate, and issue costs and attorney's fees. The case was assigned to Judge William F. Jung and Magistrate Judge Julie S. Sneed.
Regarding the APA, the plaintiffs claimed the mask mandate was contrary to law, stating that an economy-wide mandate which was not directly related to preventing interstate spread of disease and therefore was an agency action not in accordance with law and in excess of authority. The plaintiffs also argued the mask mandate was arbitrary and capricious in violation of the APA because the rationale behind the mandate was "paper thin" and failed to consider less extreme alternatives. Finally, the plaintiffs argued the mask mandate was unlawful under the APA because the CDC had failed to conduct notice and comment, but instead had "rel[ied] on good cause indefinitely" to explain why the mask mandate should be in effect without a notice and comment period. Regarding 42 C.F.R. § 70.2, which requires the CDC to consider the adequacy of state and local measures before issuing its own, the plaintiffs claimed that the CDC disregarded state and local measures by claiming the "only appropriate measure" was the mask mandate and imposing it. Regarding the constitutional claims, the plaintiffs argued the mask mandate violated the non-delegation doctrine, the Commerce Clause, the Tenth Amendment, and anti-commandeering. Specifically, they argued that if the CDC's actions were deemed appropriate, it would give the CDC a general police power and would require states to enforce the mandate, in violation of various constitutional provisions and doctrines.
The case remains ongoing.
Summary Authors
Caitlin Kierum (3/30/2022)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63194683/parties/state-of-florida-v-walensky/
Jung, William Frederic (Florida)
Percival, James Hamilton (Florida)
Freidah, Andrew (Florida)
Pezzi, Stephen Michael (Florida)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63194683/state-of-florida-v-walensky/
Last updated April 14, 2025, 11:54 a.m.
State / Territory: Florida
Case Type(s):
Presidential/Gubernatorial Authority
Special Collection(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: March 29, 2022
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
21 states
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Federal
Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Federal
Chief of Staff of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Federal
Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, Federal
Administrator of the Transportation Security Administration, Federal
Department of Homeland Security, Federal
United States of America, Federal
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.
Ex parte Young (federal or state officials)
Constitutional Clause(s):
Federalism (including 10th Amendment)
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: None Yet / None
Nature of Relief:
Source of Relief: