UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL ACTION, 

INC., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v. Civil Action No.: 

4:22-cv-00209-O

JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., in his official capacity 

as President of the United States, et al., 

Defendants.

PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR 

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 

Case 4:22-cv-00209-O Document 25 Filed 04/14/22 Page 1 of 16 PageID 959
TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .......................................................................................................... ii

I. This Court can and should grant a TRO because Plaintiffs’ primary argument is that 

CDC’s 2022 masking decisions are arbitrary and capricious. ............................................ 1

A. This Court has jurisdiction because CDC’s actions are challenged. ............................ 1

B. It is clear that the Mask Mandate is now arbitrary and capricious. .............................. 3

1. Plaintiffs challenge CDC’s recent actions based on the evidence CDC 

recently had in hand. ............................................................................................... 3

2. CDC’s recent actions are arbitrary and capricious under factors 

Defendants do not discuss. ...................................................................................... 3

3. CDC’s April 13 extension announcement shows that only swift injunctive 

relief will suffice. .................................................................................................... 7

II. Presidents can be named as Defendants when their Executive Orders give rise to a 

lawsuit. ................................................................................................................................ 8

III. Defendants deliberately confuse the balance of hardships with irreparable harm in 

the four-factor injunction analysis. ..................................................................................... 9

CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 10

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ..................................................................................................... 12

Case 4:22-cv-00209-O Document 25 Filed 04/14/22 Page 2 of 16 PageID 960
ii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U.S. 682 (1979) ................................................................................. 10 

California v. Azar, 911 F.3d 558 (9th Cir. 2021) ......................................................................... 10 

Comm. on Judiciary of U.S. House of Reps. v. Miers, 542 F.3d 909 (D.C. Cir. 2008) .................. 8 

Dialysis Patient Citizens v. Burwell, No. 4:17-cv-16, 2017 WL 365271 

(E.D. Tex. Jan. 25, 2017) .......................................................................................................... 10 

Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro, 579 U.S. 211 (2016) ............................................................. 7 

Jordan v. Fisher, 823 F.3d 805 (5th Cir. 2016) .............................................................................. 9 

Motor Vehicles Mfrs. Ass’n of U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 

463 U.S. 29 (1983) ...................................................................................................................... 4 

Nat’l Cable & Telecomm. Ass’n v. Brand X Internet Servs., 545 U.S. 967 (2005) .................... 5, 7 

Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009) ........................................................................................... 10 

Texas v. Becerra, No. 5:21-cv-300-H, --- F. Supp. 3d ---, 2021 WL 6198109 

(N.D. Tex. Dec. 31, 2021) .......................................................................................................... 6 

Texas v. Biden, 20 F.4th 928 (5th Cir. 2021) .................................................................................. 6 

Texas v. United States, 809 F.3d 134 (5th Cir. 2015), aff’d by an equally divided court, 

136 S. Ct. 2271 (2016) .............................................................................................................. 10 

Trump v. Hawaii, 138 S. Ct. 2392 (2018) ....................................................................................... 8 

Trump v. Int’l Refugee Assistance Project, 137 S. Ct. 2080 (2017) ............................................... 8 

U.S. Chamber of Commerce v. U.S. Dep’t of Labor, 885 F.3d 360 (5th Cir. 2018) ................... 4, 5 

U.S. Navy SEALs 1–26 v. Biden, No. 4:21-cv-1236-O, 2022 WL 34443 

(N.D. Tex. Jan. 3, 2022) ............................................................................................................. 8 

Wages & White Lion Investments, L.L.C. v. U.S. Food & Drug Admin., 

16 F.4th 1130 (5th Cir. 2021) ........................................................................................... 4, 6, 10 

Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008) ............................................................ 10 

Other Authorities

Rytis Beresnevicius, Singapore Airlines introduces world’s longest flight to JFK, 

AEROTIME HUB (Oct. 20, 2020) .................................................................................................. 4 

COVID-19: Choosing Safer Activities, CDC .................................................................................. 4 

COVID-19: Use and Care of Masks, CDC ..................................................................................... 5 

Case 4:22-cv-00209-O Document 25 Filed 04/14/22 Page 3 of 16 PageID 961
iii

Andrea Hagstrom, CDC extending travel mask mandate 15 more days, 

FOX BUS. (Apr. 13, 2022) ........................................................................................................... 8 

Interview with Asish Jha, Today Show (NBC television broadcast Apr. 11, 2022) ....................... 2 

IRS issues standard mileage rates for 2021, IRS ........................................................................... 9 

Requirements for Face Masks on Public Transportation Conveyances and at 

Transportation Hubs, CDC (Feb. 25, 2022) ............................................................................... 5 

Celicia Smith-Schoenwalder, CDC Guidance: 98% of the U.S. Population Can Drop 

Masks Indoors, U.S. NEWS & WORLD REP., (Mar. 11, 2022) ..................................................... 5 

Case 4:22-cv-00209-O Document 25 Filed 04/14/22 Page 4 of 16 PageID 962
Plaintiffs respectfully offer this Reply in support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary 

Restraining Order (TRO) and Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction. 

I. This Court can and should grant a TRO because Plaintiffs’ primary argument is that 

CDC’s 2022 masking decisions are arbitrary and capricious.

Contrary to Defendants’ arguments, ECF No. 24 at 7–8, the gravamen of Plaintiffs’ lawsuit 

is that recent decisions made by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) are now 

clearly arbitrary and capricious, and the other agency actions are merely derivatives implementing 

CDC’s actions. This Court has jurisdiction to declare unlawful and set aside those actions under 

the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), and should do so. See 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). 

A. This Court has jurisdiction because CDC’s actions are challenged.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is the primary agency actor in 

carrying out the Mask Mandate. President Biden signed Executive Order 13998 (EO) on January 

21, 2021. Appendix 2, ECF No. 16.1

 President Biden says that for COVID-19, “it is the policy of 

my Administration to implement ... public health measures consistent with CDC guidelines on 

public modes of transportation.” Id. For each of the other named Defendants, President Biden 

commanded that their mask requirements be “in compliance with CDC guidelines.” Id.

CDC has retained its central role. Two days later, on January 29, 2021, CDC issued its 

“CDC Order.” App. 10–16. The Acting Secretary of Homeland Security then ordered the 

Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to implement the CDC Order. App. 7. TSA did 

so, saying that its Security Directive was to enforce the CDC Order. App. 18. These are thus all 

derivative of the CDC’s actions, beginning with the CDC Order, then calibrated to remain 

consistent with subsequent CDC decisions through April 2022. By the President’s order, CDC is 

the central star in this constellation, and everyone else’s actions are contingent upon CDC’s. 

1 References to the Appendix (“App.”) refer to ECF No. 16 filed in support of Plaintiffs’ motion. 

Case 4:22-cv-00209-O Document 25 Filed 04/14/22 Page 5 of 16 PageID 963
2 

Just days ago, the White House confirmed that CDC is still the primary actor. Dr. Asish 

Jha is the White House’s COVID-19 Response Coordinator, specified in the EO as a top official 

regarding the Mask Mandate. App. 3. When asked if the Mask Mandate would be extended, Dr. 

Jha responded, “This is a decision that the CDC Director, Dr. Walensky, is going to make. I know 

that the CDC is working on developing a scientific framework ... Look, this is a CDC decision 

....” Interview with Asish Jha, Today Show (NBC television broadcast Apr. 11, 2022), 

https://tinyurl.com/bddcjkj6. If President Biden’s senior COVID-19 aide says CDC is making 

these decisions, this Court should take the White House at its word. 

Certainly, the President could modify his EO to order TSA and FAA to act independently 

of CDC. But this Court has an obligation to rule on the legality of the agency action before it. The 

fact that other agency actions are involved, and that there might be other pathways to reach the 

same result, is immaterial to this Court’s decision. 

Indeed, Defendants do not dispute that Plaintiffs have established redressability for 

standing purposes. If what Plaintiffs seek would be ineffective, Defendants would be saying that 

Plaintiffs lack standing due to lack of redressability. Defendants thus implicitly admit that 

Plaintiffs’ injuries would be redressable if this Court grants the relief sought here. 

This Court therefore has subject-matter jurisdiction to resolve this case in one of two 

fashions. First, this Court should hold that its jurisdiction over CDC encompasses other agencies 

carrying out CDC’s decisions—just like the CDC made the Title 42 decision, even though DHS 

personnel carry it out on the border. At a minimum, this Court should enjoin CDC’s actions only, 

which under the current EO will effectively require the other agencies to desist as well. 

Case 4:22-cv-00209-O Document 25 Filed 04/14/22 Page 6 of 16 PageID 964
3 

B. It is clear that the Mask Mandate is now arbitrary and capricious.

1. Plaintiffs challenge CDC’s recent actions based on the evidence CDC 

recently had in hand. 

On the merits, Plaintiffs’ argument is that, all else aside, the Mask Mandate was clearly 

arbitrary and capricious after Defendants decided to extend it beyond March 18, 2022. ECF No. 

15 at 17. Plaintiffs are arguing from the lesser to the greater: It is questionable at best whether 

Defendants’ actions had already crossed the legal threshold on January 29, 2021. A great deal of 

research has since been done, recounted in Plaintiffs’ opening brief. If Plaintiffs’ actions were 

arbitrary and capricious in January 2021, then a fortiori they are arbitrary and capricious now. But 

even if those initial actions were legally sufficient in early 2021, subsequent discoveries render the 

more recent decisions arbitrary and capricious now. Plaintiffs thus challenge the legality of 

Defendants’ actions currently in effect—primarily CDC’s—based on the evidence and information 

that CDC had at the time in 2022 when it took action to extended the mandate. 

Defendants’ argument that Plaintiffs were dilatory in seeking relief, ECF No. 24 at 11, is

thus false. CDC’s March 18, 2022 decision to extend the Mask Mandate is what precipitated this 

lawsuit. Plaintiffs filed five days later, and sought a preliminary injunction one week later. After 

the same agency, CDC, decided on April 1 to terminate Title 42, Plaintiffs believed the 

arbitrariness of its flawed decisionmaking had become so clear as to warrant a TRO. 

2. CDC’s recent actions are arbitrary and capricious under factors 

Defendants do not discuss. 

The Supreme Court and Fifth Circuit have set forth criteria for what amounts to arbitrary 

and capricious agency action. Defendants erect a strawman by painting Plaintiffs as arguing that 

masks are worthless. To the contrary, Plaintiffs actually cited various levels of effectiveness, and 

primarily target the limits and disadvantages of masks, and inconsistencies and unexplained issues

with the Mask Mandate. ECF No. 15 at 8–9. It is on all these other factors that Defendants fail. 

Case 4:22-cv-00209-O Document 25 Filed 04/14/22 Page 7 of 16 PageID 965
4 

APA review “is not toothless.” Wages & White Lion Investments, L.L.C. v. U.S. Food & 

Drug Admin., 16 F.4th 1130, 1136 (5th Cir. 2021). To satisfy arbitrary and capricious review, an 

agency must consider all relevant factors and aspects, examine relevant data, and satisfactorily 

explain its action. Motor Vehicles Mfrs. Ass’n of U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 

U.S. 29, 43 (1983). CDC’s decisionmaking here does not meet this standard. 

For example, Defendants’ point that the military’s assessment that it would take 54 hours 

on a plane to get infected cuts in their favor because that study assumed wearing surgical masks, 

ECF No. 24 at 19, actually cuts against them, and in Plaintiffs’ favor. Defendants do not deny 

Plaintiffs’ studies that surgical masks are only 12 percent effective. ECF No. 15 at 9. Defendants 

fail to explain why masks are necessary when, with 12 percent protection, it still takes 54 hours to 

get infected, while the longest flight in the world is only 18 hours. See Rytis Beresnevicius, 

Singapore Airlines introduces world’s longest flight to JFK, AEROTIME HUB (Oct. 20, 2020), 

https://tinyurl.com/2jzdyjhv. Given the length of time it takes to get infected with minimal (12 

percent) protection, why is zero protection insufficient for flights less than one-third of 54 hours? 

And domestic flights would be much shorter than 18 hours. That is illogical, which is an indication 

of arbitrary and capricious action. U.S. Chamber of Commerce v. U.S. Dep’t of Labor, 885 F.3d 

360, 382 (5th Cir. 2018). 

Another example pertains to restaurants and bars. Experts have determined that people are 

at greater risk from COVID-19 in restaurants than in airplanes. ECF No. 15 at 10. Defendants

never deny this expert conclusion, nor dispute the facts that feed into it, such as the extensive 

filtration of the cabin air. Yet CDC does not recommend mandating masks in restaurants and bars

if a person is vaccinated. COVID-19: Choosing Safer Activities, CDC, 

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/daily-life-coping/participate-in-activities.html (last 

Case 4:22-cv-00209-O Document 25 Filed 04/14/22 Page 8 of 16 PageID 966
5 

visited Apr. 14, 2022). An alternate CDC measure, based on the level of community spread for 

COVID-19, which does not recommend masks for low- and medium-spread, instead only advising 

them for high-spread areas if indoors. COVID-19: Use and Care of Masks, CDC, 

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/about-face-coverings.html (last 

visited Apr. 14, 2022). As recently as last month, this was interpreted as meaning that 98 percent 

of the time people need not wear masks indoors. See Celicia Smith-Schoenwalder, CDC 

Guidance: 98% of the U.S. Population Can Drop Masks Indoors, U.S. NEWS &WORLD REP., (Mar. 

11, 2022), https://tinyurl.com/459ysawn. Here, CDC never reconciles requiring masks in the 

lower-risk environment of an airplane while not recommending it in restaurants or most indoor 

activities. Nor does it reconcile its policy of exempting vaccinated individuals from masking. 

Unexplained inconsistency makes an agency action arbitrary and capricious, Nat’l Cable & 

Telecomm. Ass’n v. Brand X Internet Servs., 545 U.S. 967, 981 (2005), as does internal 

inconsistency, U.S. Chamber, 885 F.3d at 382. The Mask Mandate should fall on this point alone. 

Moreover, CDC does not deny that the calculus for masks should be different for children. 

All Defendants say is that CDC’s decision is reasonable. But although CDC continues to extend 

the Mask Mandate, it now makes an exception for public transportation of children to school. 

Requirements for Face Masks on Public Transportation Conveyances and at Transportation Hubs, 

CDC (Feb. 25, 2022), https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/travelers/face-masks-publictransportation.html. Why is that safe, but not if the same mode is used for something other than 

school? And Defendants do not deny that airplane air is cleaner than buses. These unexplained 

and internal inconsistencies are fatal. Brand X, 545 U.S. at 981; U.S. Chamber, 885 F.3d at 382. 

Defendants also do not attempt to refute the studies cited by Plaintiffs regarding the risks 

of physical and mental harm to children from masks. All they do is say that they made different 

Case 4:22-cv-00209-O Document 25 Filed 04/14/22 Page 9 of 16 PageID 967
6 

decisions from those of the World Health Organization, and in that vein, defend setting the 

exemption cutoff at age two instead of six because the CDC heeded different experts. ECF No. 

24 at 21. But “reliance on expertise and experience” is not enough to satisfy the APA, because 

such reliance “is no substitute for reasoned decisionmaking.” Wages & White Lion, 16 F.4th at 

1137. Defendants present no such reasoned decisionmaking on these children’s issues. 

Nor does CDC show it has accounted for natural immunity. Defendants’ response, ECF 

No. 24 at 20, merely claims it was considered. “Stating that a factor was considered ... is not a 

substitute for considering it.” Texas v. Biden, 20 F.4th 928, 993 (5th Cir. 2021) (internal quotation 

marks omitted). The failure to incorporate natural immunity into the Mask Mandate was arbitrary. 

Finally, the CDC Order simply states “that the mask-wearing requirements in this Order 

are reasonably necessary to prevent the further introduction, transmission, or spread of COVID19.” App. 15. But this is a stereotypical example of a conclusory statement, insufficient for 5 

U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). Wages & White Lion, 16 F.4th at 1137. This Court has also held that imposing 

a federal COVID-19 mask mandate as a one-size-fits-all mandate instead of tailoring the policy to 

account for relevant factors is the hallmark of action that is arbitrary and capricious. Texas v. 

Becerra, No. 5:21-cv-300-H, --- F. Supp. 3d ---, 2021 WL 6198109, at *16 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 31, 

2021). That is what Defendants have done here. 

In short, the questions Plaintiffs posed still remain unanswered after Defendants’ brief:

Why exempt one-year-olds, but not five-year-olds, as the World Health Organization does? 

See Coronavirus disease (COVID-19), supra. Why say people must wear a mask when 

standing in an airport, but not while they are sitting, so long as they are eating or drinking 

for a short period of time? How does the presence of food or drink at their table lower their 

risk of contracting or spreading COVID-19 compared to sitting at the same table without a 

beverage? And what data clearly explain why the permissible time period to sit in an 

airport restaurant maskless is 15 minutes, instead of 10 minutes or 45 minutes? And if 

passengers can sit for 15 minutes without a mask when sitting in an airport restaurant, why 

cannot they sit without a mask for 15 minutes while on an airplane? For that matter, given 

how much more heavily filtered the air is on an airplane—cleanerthan restaurant air, which 

Case 4:22-cv-00209-O Document 25 Filed 04/14/22 Page 10 of 16 PageID 968
7 

is what they would breathe at an airport restaurant—why are they then not allowed to 

remove their mask for longer than 15 minutes? 

ECF No. 15 at 16–17. Plaintiffs repeat: These things are unexplained by the record—as it exists 

in 2022—because they are inexplicable. These questions demonstrates that Defendants—in 

2022—are acting unreasonably, illogically, and inconsistently by imposing a Mask Mandate with 

these features. The requirement for reasoned decisionmaking is met only “when the agency’s 

explanation is clear enough that its path may be reasonably discerned.” Encino Motorcars, LLC 

v. Navarro, 579 U.S. 211, 221 (2016). It is not. Defendants are violating the APA.

3. CDC’s April 13 extension announcement shows that only swift

injunctive relief will suffice.

Moreover, the fact that CDC announces only days before expiration that it is extending the 

Mask Mandate for yet another 15 days—and could then extend it yet again—shows why this Court 

must act swiftly. An agency must assess “the wisdom of its policy on a continuing basis.” Brand 

X, 545 U.S at 981 (internal quotation marks omitted). Quite the opposite, the CDC is nickel-anddiming the regulatory process and judicial review by extending this unwarranted requirement in 

30- or 15-day increments, with only generalized and conclusory statements about being justified 

by the latest data. 

Separately, Defendants’ insistence on a 14-day delay if this Court grants a TRO rings 

hollow. First, ending the Mask Mandate does not require anyone to do anything. When imposing

a mandate, supplies must to be distributed and people trained on proper use. Ending a mandate 

just tells them to relax. They do not even need to be told the mandated ended, because people 

would be free to wear masks if they choose. So all the handwringing about the need to 

communicate with a vast number of people is overwrought. Second, Plaintiffs might have had a 

point a century ago. But this is 2022, not 1922. Between television news, the internet, texting, 

and social media, Plaintiffs are confident the word can get out in fewer than 14 days to people who 

Case 4:22-cv-00209-O Document 25 Filed 04/14/22 Page 11 of 16 PageID 969
8 

need to know about the policy change. Third, when the public expected these measures could 

lapse on April 18, 2022, Defendants gave the public only five days’ notice that the Mask Mandate 

would be extended. See Andrea Hagstrom, CDC extending travel mask mandate 15 more days, 

FOX BUS. (Apr. 13, 2022), https://tinyurl.com/4r8jenxv. Two weeks are thus clearly not needed. 

It will not harm the United States Government to allow Plaintiffs to travel without a mask. If 

Defendants want to seek a stay of a TRO, they can seek it in the usual way. 

II. Presidents can be named as Defendants when their Executive Orders give rise to a 

lawsuit. 

Defendants next argue that President Biden must be dismissed as a party, and that this 

should happen at the early stage of granting a temporary restraining order. They are mistaken. 

This case is unlike U.S. Navy SEALs 1–26 v. Biden, No. 4:21-cv-1236-O, 2022 WL 34443 

(N.D. Tex. Jan. 3, 2022), because there the originating challenged action was from the Secretary 

of Defense, not the President. See id. at *1–3. This case by contrast is like several that went 

through the Supreme Court with the President still named. One is Trump v. Int’l Refugee 

Assistance Project, 137 S. Ct. 2080 (2017) (IRAP), challenging the President’s Executive Orders. 

See id. at 2083–84. Another was when the President was sued in a challenge to Presidential 

Proclamation 9645. Trump v. Hawaii, 138 S. Ct. 2392, 2404 (2018). This case should be no 

different. 

Moreover, this Court can declare unlawful the agency actions taken to implement 

Executive Order 13998 without enjoining the President. This Court may presume “that the 

officials of the Executive Branch will adhere to the law as declared by the court. As a result, the 

declaratory judgment is the functional equivalent of an injunction.” Comm. on Judiciary of U.S. 

House of Reps. v. Miers, 542 F.3d 909, 911 (D.C. Cir. 2008). 

Thus, while Plaintiffs ask for injunctive relief against the various agencies here and their 

Case 4:22-cv-00209-O Document 25 Filed 04/14/22 Page 12 of 16 PageID 970
9 

officers, no such injunction needs to lie against the President himself. The President, however, 

should remain as a party, at least until such time as full briefing can be presented on this matter if 

Defendants file a motion to dismiss. 

III. Defendants deliberately confuse the balance of hardships with irreparable harm in 

the four-factor injunction analysis. 

Defendants’ arguments regarding harm, ECF No. 24 at 10, 12–13, are flawed. First, they 

assert that the harm Plaintiffs complain of is 14 months old. As discussed in Parts I.A & B, the 

CDC’s challenged actions occurred in the past month. 

Second, the nature of the harm: Plaintiffs wearing and obtaining masks are separate 

irreparable harms. Purchasing masks even for six dollars is a harm. Defendants cite no minimum 

amount-in-controversy requirement for an injunction. A CDC website does not tell a person where 

they can get “free” masks; it tells people where they can get masks if they suffer the harm of 

spending time, fuel, and wear-and-tear on their vehicle, which is hardly insignificant, given that a 

businessperson can write it off per mile on taxes at rates that can exceed the “savings” on “free” 

masks. See IRS issues standard mileage rates for 2021, IRS, https://tinyurl.com/mrypurdt (owners 

can write off 56 cents per mile). 

But even if it were truly zero economic cost, it would still be a harm. Plaintiffs do not want 

to wear uncomfortable and burdensome masks. App. 139 ¶ 16, 143 ¶ 7, 146 ¶ 5. And Defendants 

do not refute the risk of harms Plaintiffs presented, especially regarding children, because a 

“substantial threat” of injury is sufficient. Jordan v. Fisher, 823 F.3d 805, 809 (5th Cir. 2016). 

Nor is this limited to one 14-year-old, as FRC Action’s 26,163 members including parents with 

children of all ages. Cf. App. 139 ¶¶ 9–11. 

Defendants’ other harm argument also fails. The irreparable-harm prong of the test for 

preliminary relief asks merely if Plaintiffs will suffer harm that cannot be remedied by monetary 

Case 4:22-cv-00209-O Document 25 Filed 04/14/22 Page 13 of 16 PageID 971
10 

damages after the fact. The “frequently reiterated standard” requires only “that irreparable injury 

is likely” absent an injunction. Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008)

(emphasis omitted). “The analysis focuses on irreparability, irrespective of the magnitude of the 

injury.” California v. Azar, 911 F.3d 558, 581 (9th Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks omitted). 

Comparing that harm to the hardship Defendants would encounter if an injunction issues 

is the third prong of the analysis, not the second. See, e.g., Dialysis Patient Citizens v. Burwell, 

No. 4:17-cv-16, 2017 WL 365271, at *6 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 25, 2017). Yet Defendants dare not admit 

that, because the Defendant is the government. Accordingly, the third and fourth prongs merge, 

Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 435 (2009), and enjoining unlawful agency actions is always in the 

public interest, Wages & White Lion, 16 F.4th at 1143. 

IV. A nationwide injunction is needed for relief for the 26,000-plus people represented

here.

Finally, nationwide relief is necessary. A district court’s authority “extends across the

country.” Texas v. United States, 809 F.3d 134, 188 (5th Cir. 2015), aff’d by an equally 

divided court, 136 S. Ct. 2271 (2016). And, while an injunction should not burden 

Defendants more than necessary, Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U.S. 682, 702 (1979), nationwide 

scope is appropriate when necessary to provide complete relief to Plaintiffs, Texas, 809 F.3d at 

188. Plaintiff FRC Action’s 26,163 members require that here. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Mask Mandate is arbitrary and capricious and is causing

irreparable harm. This Court should accordingly grant immediate injunctive relief.

Case 4:22-cv-00209-O Document 25 Filed 04/14/22 Page 14 of 16 PageID 972
11 

April 14, 2022 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Kenneth A. Klukowski 

Mark R. Paoletta*

D.C. Bar No. 422746 

Gene C. Schaerr*

D.C. Bar No. 416368 

Kenneth A. Klukowski 

D.C. Bar No. 1046093 

SCHAERR |JAFFE LLP

1717 K Street NW, Suite 900 

Washington, DC 20006 

Tel: (202) 787-1060 

Facsimile: (202) 776-0136 

kklukowski@schaerr-jaffe.com

*Pro hac vice application forthcoming 

Counsel for Plaintiffs

Case 4:22-cv-00209-O Document 25 Filed 04/14/22 Page 15 of 16 PageID 973
12 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

On April 14, 2022, I filed the foregoing document with the clerk of court for the United 

States District Court, Northern District of Texas. I hereby certify that I have served the document 

on counsel of record for all parties via the Court’s ECF system. 

 

 /s/ Kenneth A. Klukowski

 Kenneth A. Klukowski 

Attorney for Plaintiffs

Case 4:22-cv-00209-O Document 25 Filed 04/14/22 Page 16 of 16 PageID 974