USCA11 Case: 22-11287 Document: 95-1 Date Filed: 06/22/2023 Page: 1 of 11 [PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 22-11287 ____________________ HEALTH FREEDOM DEFENSE FUND, a Wyoming Not-for-Profit Corporation, ANA CAROLINA DAZA, an individual, SARAH POPE, an individual, Plaintiffs-Appellees, versus PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, THE CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL, THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, DIRECTOR OF THE CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION, et al., USCA11 Case: 22-11287 Document: 95-1 Date Filed: 06/22/2023 Page: 2 of 11 2 Opinion of the Court 22-11287 Defendants-Appellants. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 8:21-cv-01693-KKM-AEP ____________________ Before WILSON, JORDAN, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges. WILSON, Circuit Judge: In the winter of 2020, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) determined that the threat posed by the novel SARS-CoV-2 virus constituted a public health emergency. Determi- nation of Public Health Emergency, 85 Fed. Reg. 7316-01 (Feb. 7, 2020). Not long after, then-President Trump declared that the global out- break constituted a national emergency. Declaring a National Emer- gency Concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Outbreak, 85 Fed. Reg. 15,337 (Mar. 13, 2020). Over the course of the next three years, spanning two presidential administrations, public serv- ants scrambled to take actions they believed would combat the spread of the disease and safeguard the well-being of Americans. With mixed results, many of those actions were challenged in our nation’s courts. The particular action before us today is a mandate promul- gated by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). In January of 2021, President Biden issued Executive Order 13998, USCA11 Case: 22-11287 Document: 95-1 Date Filed: 06/22/2023 Page: 3 of 11 22-11287 Opinion of the Court 3 which directed the secretaries of multiple agencies to “immediately take action, to the extent appropriate and consistent with applica- ble law, to require masks to be worn in compliance with CDC guidelines in or on” airports, commercial aircraft, trains, public maritime vessels, intercity bus services, and other forms of public transportation. Promoting COVID-19 Safety in Domestic and Interna- tional Travel, 86 Fed. Reg. 7205, 7205 (Jan. 21, 2021). Pursuant to that order, the CDC published the rule at issue—the Requirement for Persons to Wear Masks While on Conveyances and at Transportation Hubs, 86 Fed. Reg. 8025-01 (Feb. 3, 2021) (“Mandate”). Among other things, the Mandate required individuals to “wear a mask while boarding, disembarking, and traveling on any conveyance into or within the United States” and while “at any transportation hub that provides transportation within the United States.” Id. at 8029. The Mandate’s duration was tied to that of the COVID-19 pandemic, remaining “in effect unless modified or re- scinded based on specific public health or other considerations, or until the Secretary of Health and Human Services rescinds the de- termination under section 319 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. [§] 247d) that a public health emergency exists.” Id. …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals