UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

ERIC JACKSON, et. al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ALEJANDRO N. MAYORKAS, 

Secretary of Homeland Security, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 4:22-cv-825-P

DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY

Defendants respectfully notify the Court of the recent decision in Bazzrea v. 

Mayorkas, --- F. Supp. 3d ----, 2023 WL 3958912 (S.D. Tex. June 12, 2023). In that case, as here,

the plaintiffs challenged the Coast Guard’s now-rescinded COVID-19 vaccination requirement, 

bringing claims (among others) under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the Free Exercise 

Clause, and the Administrative Procedure Act. After enactment of the James M. Inhofe National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023, Pub. L. No. 117-263, 136 Stat. 2395 (2022), the 

Bazzrea court found the case was moot and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Bazzrea provides 

additional support for Defendants’ motion to dismiss this case as moot, ECF No. 69.

Defendants also notify the Court of the Fifth Circuit’s recent decision in Abbott v. 

Biden, --- F.4th ----, 2023 WL 3945847 (5th Cir. June 12, 2023), which concerned a challenge to 

the COVID-19 vaccination requirement for members of the Texas National Guard. In Abbott, the 

Fifth Circuit concluded the appeal was not moot because the Secretary of Defense had “reserved 

the ability to punish Guardsmen who didn’t seek a religious, administrative, or medical 

accommodation while the mandate was operative,” and so “Texas Guardsmen . . . [who] never 

sought an accommodation while the mandate was in effect” remained subject to future adverse 

action. Id. at *4. 

Case 4:22-cv-00825-P Document 86 Filed 06/16/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID 1936
2

Defendants respectfully disagree with the Fifth Circuit’s interpretation of the applicable 

military policies, but they submit that the mootness analysis in Abbott provides additional support 

for their motion to dismiss. The Coast Guard does not have a National Guard component, and so 

the primary policy challenged in Abbott is not at issue here. See id. at *3 (noting the relevant

enforcement policies were developed following a directive by the Secretary of Defense to the 

Army and Air Force). Further, each of the Plaintiffs in this case submitted religious 

accommodation requests, see Compl. ¶ 5, and so they are not subject to future punishment for past 

noncompliance with the Coast Guard’s now-rescinded COVID-19 vaccination requirement. As 

the Fifth Circuit expressly noted in Abbott, because there is no further risk of punishment for those 

who submitted religious accommodation requests to the COVID-19 vaccination requirement, 

claims brought by those individuals are “very likely moot.” Abbott, 2023 WL 3945847, at *4.

Dated: June 16, 2023 Respectfully submitted,

BRIAN M. BOYNTON

Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General 

ALEXANDER K. HAAS

Branch Director

ANTHONY H. COPPOLINO

Deputy Branch Director

/s/ Cody T. Knapp 

CODY T. KNAPP (NY Bar #5715438)

JOHNNY H. WALKER (DC Bar #991325)

Trial Attorneys

United States Department of Justice

Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch

1100 L Street NW

Washington, D.C. 20530

Tel.: (202) 532-5663 / Fax: (202) 616-8460

Email: cody.t.knapp@usdoj.gov

Counsel for Defendants

Case 4:22-cv-00825-P Document 86 Filed 06/16/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID 1937