The case raises questions about ceding jurisdiction over public health policy to one federal district judge. The case is Health Freedom Defense Fund v. Biden (M.D. Fla. No. 8:21-cv-01693).
The Complaint alleged jurisdiction only on the basis of diversity. The Complaint was filed in the names of three plaintiffs. It alleged that two individual plaintiffs are from Florida, and that the third plaintiff is a Wyoming corporation headquartered in Idaho.
The two individuals claimed that they wanted to use public travel in the future. Their travel plans might include travelling by airplane from the Tampa airport, and they alleged that to do so, they would have had to comply with a mandate to wear masks in the COVID-19 pandemic. That entitled them, they alleged, to sue the many officials of the federal government in Tampa. Download Health Freedom Defense Fund v. Biden Doc. 1 Complaint filed 07.12.21 (M.D. Fla. No. 8.21.cv.01693) (jurisdiction alleged under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 & 1346, and 5 U.S.C. § 702.03; venue alleged under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2)&(e)(1)).
The Department of Justice filed an Answer with no affirmative defenses on behalf of the United States. Download Health Freedom Defense Fund v. Biden Doc. 20 Answer filed 1013..21 (M.D. Fla. No. 8.21.cv.01693).pdf NO ADS!
They did not challenge jurisdiction or venue in Tampa.
They did agree, however, that the plaintiffs could amend their complaint. Download Health Freedom Defense Fund v. Biden Doc. 39 Amended Answer filed 12.13..21 (M.D. Fla. No. 8.21.cv.01693) But they did not defend against the Amended Complaint, not even filing an Answer.
They did not file any affirmative defenses in response to this do-over opportunity, either.
The plaintiffs' uncontested theories of jurisdiction and venue are simple: This suit could have been brought anywhere.
That means of course that if these theories prevail -- and they sure seem to have prevailed so far -- a suit like this can be brought anywhere.
That offers an alternative to the appeal which the DOJ has filed, at least an alternative to running the risk of bad precedent from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The greatest danger to acceptance of Judge Mizelle's ruling may not be the public criticism of it, or even the possibility that the Eleventh Circuit may reverse her ruling.
The greatest danger to acceptance of Judge Mizelle's bizarre ruling is that District Judges ruling in other jurisdictions may reject it.
For that matter, nothing prevents people living in the Middle District of Florida from filing suit to request declaratory relief of the Center for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC's) mask-mandate-for-public-travel, either.
If jurisdiction and venue are proper in federal District Court in Tampa in this case, then jurisdiction and venue are proper in any federal District Court in the United States in a case like this.
Perhaps that will help put this case back in perspective. "Just sayin'."
Please read the disclaimer. ©2022 Dennis J. Wall. All rights reserved.
Comments