Cluster 5303558

Servs., 19 F.4th 1271, 1285 (11th Cir. 2021) (“The federal courts long have recognized that the principle of comity requires federal district courts—courts of coordinate jurisdiction and equal rank—to exercise care to avoid interference with each other’s affairs.”).

See Florida, 19 F.4th at 1282 (“[C]ourts have frequently found that a nationwide injunction can be warranted in the immigration law context.”).

Servs., 19 F.4th 1271, 1291 (11th Cir. 2021) (“Even if we were to agree . . . that these other options were preferable . . . this would not come close to showing that the district court erred in concluding that the Secretary’s decision was not arbitrary or capricious.”).

In- deed, Chrysler expressly disavows any such requirement: “This is not to say that any grant of legislative authority to a federal agency by Congress must be specific before regulations promulgated pur- suant to it can be binding on courts in a manner akin to statutes.” Id. at 308, 99 S. Ct. at 1720–21; see also Florida v. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 19 F.4th 1271, 1288 (11th Cir. 2021) (“[B]y its very nature, a broad grant of authority . . . does not require an indica…

Servs., 19 F.4th 1271, 1288 (11th Cir. 2021).

Servs., 19 F.4th 1271, 1290 (11th Cir. 2021) (quotation omitted); Biden v. Texas, 597 U.S. 785, 816 (2022) (Kavanaugh, J., concurring).

Servs., 19 F.4th 1271, 1281 (11th Cir. 2021) (declining to find mootness where a district court in another circuit issued a nationwide injunction, because “there was a reasonable expectation that” the other circuit “would not uphold the nationwide aspect of the injunction”).

Servs., 19 F.4th 1271, 1290 (11th Cir. 2021) (citation and quotations omitted); Defs. of Wildlife v. U.S. Dep’t of Navy, 733 F.3d 1106, 1115 (11th Cir. 2013) (same); Fund for Animals, Inc. v. Rice, 85 F.3d 535, 541 (11th Cir. 1996) (“To determine whether an agency decision was arbitrary and capricious, the reviewing court must consider whether the decision was based on a consideration of the relevant factors and whether there has been a clear error of judgment.” (internal qu…

Rather, nationwide relief is necessary to remedy the irreparable harm to the parties before the Court because “the plaintiffs are dispersed throughout the United States.” Florida v. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 19 F.4th 1271, 1282 (11th Cir. 2021).

Servs., 19 F.4th 1271, 1281-82 (11th Cir. 2018) (quotation omitted); see also City of Chicago v. Barr, 961 F.3d 882 , 915-16 (7th Cir. 2020) (arguing that the Supreme Court implicitly approved nationwide injunctions in Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project, 582 U.S. 571 (2017), when it denied a request to stay an injunction as to non-parties that were similarly situated to plaintiffs).

Those “appropriate circumstances are rare,” but they may arise when a universal injunction “is necessary to provide complete relief to the plaintiffs, to protect similarly sit- uated nonparties,” “to avoid the chaos and confusion of a patch- work of injunctions,” to guard plaintiffs “dispersed throughout the United States,” or “when certain types of unconstitutionality are found.” Florida, 19 F.4th at 1282 (cleaned up).

Servs., 19 F.4th 1271, 1291 (11th Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks omitted) (citing Miccosukee, 566 F.3d at 1264 ).

Servs., 19 F. 4th 1271, 1293 (11th Cir. 2021)) (“Where the government is the party opposing the preliminary injunction, its interest and harm—the third and fourth elements—merge with the public interest.”).

Air, 573 U.S. at 324. 72 Florida v. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 19 F.4th 1271, 1303 (11th Cir. 2021) (Lagoa, J., dissenting); see also BST Holdings, 17 F.4th at 619 (Duncan, J., concurring) (concluding that OSHA lacked authority to impose a vaccine mandate where “OSHA issued it under an emergency provision addressing workplace ‘substances,’ ‘agents,’ or ‘hazards’ that it has used only ten times in the last 50 years and never to mandate vaccines”). 73 N.F.I.B., 142 S. Ct.…

Servs., 19 F.4th 1271, 1279 (11th Cir. 2021) (quoting Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 434 (2009)).

Servs., 19 F.4th 1271, 1288, 1291-92 (11th Cir. 2021) (denying injunction of the CMS Rule and noting the agency’s 20 finding that “it is the very opposite of efficient and effective administration for a facility that is supposed to make people well to make them sick with COVID-19”).’ Third, courts have denied preliminary injunctions of similar state executive orders requiring covered settings to institute policies requiring healthcare workers to get vaccinated.

Servs., 19 F.4th 1271, 1279 (11th Cir. 2021).

Servs., 19 F.4th 1271, 1275 (11th Cir. 2021) (explaining that “Medicare, which is funded entirely by the federal government, covers individuals who are over age 65 or who have specified disabilities [while] Medicaid, which is funded by the federal government and the States, covers eligible low-income individuals, including those who are elderly, pregnant, or disabled”).

Servs., 19 F.4th 1271, 1290 (11th Cir. 2021).

Servs., 19 F.4th 1271, 1279 (11th Cir. 2021) (quoting Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 434 (2009)).

Servs., 19 F.4th 1271, 1305 (11th Cir. 2021) (Lagoa, J., dissenting).

It would be the “very opposite of efficient and 23 effective administration for a facility that is supposed to make people well to make them sick with COVID-19.” 24 25 Id. at 652 (quoting Florida v. HHS, 19 F.4th 1271, 1288 (11th Cir. 2021)). 26 In the instant case, on the other hand, Defendants argue that the Contractor 27 Mandate is authorized by a statute granting the President authority to issue regulations 28 respecting procurement.

It would be the “very opposite of efficient and effective administration for a facility that is supposed to make people well to make them sick with COVID–19.” Florida v. Department of Health and Human Servs., 19 F. 4th 1271, 1288 (CA11 2021).

Jett v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Ala., Inc., 890 F.2d 1137, 1139 (11th Cir. 1989); see also, e.g., Florida v. HHS, 19 F.4th 1271, 1290 (11th Cir. 2021) (“The arbitrary and capricious standard is ‘exceed- ingly deferential.’” (quoting Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Fla. v. United States, 566 F.3d 1257, 1264 (11th Cir. 2009))).