University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name Brnovich v. Biden IM-AZ-0032
Docket / Court 2:21-cv-01568 ( D. Ariz. )
State/Territory Arizona
Case Type(s) Immigration and/or the Border
Special Collection COVID-19 (novel coronavirus)
Case Summary
COVID-19 Summary: This is a case brought by Arizona's Attorney General challenging the Biden administration's planned vaccine mandate as unconstitutional under the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.


On September 9, 2021, President Biden announced a broad plan to ... read more >
COVID-19 Summary: This is a case brought by Arizona's Attorney General challenging the Biden administration's planned vaccine mandate as unconstitutional under the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.


On September 9, 2021, President Biden announced a broad plan to increase vaccination rates nationwide. The plan would require all employers with 100 or more employees to ensure their workforces were fully vaccinated or tested weekly. In addition, it would require workers in most healthcare settings that receive Medicare or Medicaid reimbursement, all executive branch federal employees and contractors, and educators in the federally-paid Head Start program to be vaccinated. The following day, during a press conference, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki confirmed that COVID-19 vaccinations were not required for unauthorized aliens at the border.

Five days after President Biden's announcement, the Attorney General of Arizona filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona alleging that the vaccine mandate was unconstitutional because it presented a preference for unauthorized aliens over U.S. citizens and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The complaint asserted that the imposition of a vaccine mandate by the federal government on U.S. citizens and lawfully employed aliens, but not on unauthorized aliens, violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by treating similarly situated persons differently on the basis of alienage.

The case was assigned to Judge Michael T. Liburdi.

As of September 15, 2021, the case remains pending.

Rachel Harrington - 09/15/2021


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Constitutional Clause
Equal Protection
Discrimination-basis
National origin discrimination
Immigration/Border
Admission - procedure
Plaintiff Type
State Plaintiff
Causes of Action Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Defendant(s) United States
Plaintiff Description The Attorney General for the State of Arizona
Class action status sought No
Class action status outcome Not sought
Filed Pro Se No
Prevailing Party None Yet / None
Public Int. Lawyer No
Nature of Relief None yet
Source of Relief None yet
Filed 09/14/2021
Case Ongoing Yes
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
  See this case at CourtListener.com (May provide additional documents and, for active cases, real-time alerts)
Court Docket(s)
D. Ariz.
09/14/2021
2:21-cv-01568-MTL
IM-AZ-0032-9000.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
D. Ariz.
09/14/2021
Complaint for Declaratory Relief [ECF# 1]
IM-AZ-0032-0001.pdf | Detail
Source: Plaintiffs' counsel
show all people docs
Judges Liburdi, Michael Thomas (D. Ariz.) show/hide docs
IM-AZ-0032-9000
Plaintiff's Lawyers Ensign, Drew Curtis (Arizona) show/hide docs
IM-AZ-0032-0001
Kanefield, Joseph Andrew (Arizona) show/hide docs
IM-AZ-0032-0001 | IM-AZ-0032-9000
Rogers, James Kenneth (Arizona) show/hide docs
IM-AZ-0032-0001 | IM-AZ-0032-9000
Roysden, Brunn Wall III (Arizona) show/hide docs
IM-AZ-0032-0001 | IM-AZ-0032-9000

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -