1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

TYLER DIVISION 

THE DAILY WIRE, LLC et al., 

 Plaintiffs 

v. 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT 

OF STATE et al., 

 Defendants. 

 Civil Action No. 6:23-cv-00609 (JDK) 

NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY 

 Defendants respectfully submit this Notice of Supplemental Authority to apprise the Court of 

a recent decision that is relevant to Defendants’ Rule 12(h)(3) Motion or, Alternatively, Motion to 

Reconsider Memorandum Opinion and Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion to 

Dismiss and Motion to Transfer, ECF No. 72. Specifically, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth 

Circuit on November 4, 2024 issued an opinion concluding that the plaintiffs in Kennedy v. Biden, a 

lawsuit that has been consolidated with Missouri v. Biden, lack standing to seek a preliminary injunction. 

Missouri v. Biden, No. 24-30252, 2024 WL 4664015 at *1 (5th Cir. Nov. 4, 2024) (per curiam) 

(unpublished) (attached as Exhibit A). The Fifth Circuit therefore vacated the Kennedy preliminary 

injunction and directed the district court on remand to “consider whether Plaintiffs have standing to 

seek other forms of relief, if any, and if not, dismiss the suit for lack of standing consistent with this 

opinion.” Id. at *1 & n.1. 

In Kennedy, two individuals and one organization “brought a follow-on complaint” to Missouri 

“against a similar group of federal government Defendants” and proceeded on the same factual record 

as in Missouri. Id. at *1. The district court granted their request for a preliminary injunction. Id. at *2. 

Case 6:23-cv-00609-JDK Document 85 Filed 11/12/24 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 2286
2 

Following Murthy v. Missouri, 144 S. Ct. 1972 (2024), in which the Supreme Court concluded that the 

Missouri plaintiffs lacked standing, the Kennedy plaintiffs submitted supplemental declarations in an 

attempt to distinguish the Court’s holding. See Missouri v. Biden, 2024 WL 4664015, at *2. The Fifth 

Circuit has now held that the Kennedy plaintiffs’ supplemental evidence failed to meet the standards 

for traceability and redressability set forth in Murthy v. Missouri. Id. at *2–*4.

In their response to Defendants’ Rule 12(h)(3) motion to dismiss, the Plaintiffs in this case 

cited the Kennedy district court’s opinion whose conclusion that the Kennedy plaintiffs had standing has 

now been reversed. See ECF No. 80 at 25–26 (citing Kennedy v. Biden, 2024 WL 3879510 (W.D. La. 

Aug. 20, 2024)). 

Dated: November 12, 2024 Respectfully submitted, 

BRIAN M. BOYNTON 

Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General 

JOSHUA E. GARDNER

Special Counsel 

Federal Programs Branch 

JOSEPH E. BORSON 

Assistant Director 

Federal Programs Branch 

/s/ Arjun Mody_____________________ 

JOSHUA M. KOLSKY (DC #993430) 

Senior Trial Counsel 

DOROTHY M. CANEVARI (NY #5989694) 

CRISTEN C. HANDLEY (MO #69114) 

ARJUN MODY (DC #90013383) 

Trial Attorneys 

United States Department of Justice 

Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 

1100 L Street, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20005 

Tel: (202) 451-7723 

Case 6:23-cv-00609-JDK Document 85 Filed 11/12/24 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 2287
3 

Email: arjun.a.mody@usdoj.gov 

Counsel for Defendants 

 

Case 6:23-cv-00609-JDK Document 85 Filed 11/12/24 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 2288
4 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

 On November 12, 2024, I electronically submitted this document to the clerk of the court of 

the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas using the court’s electronic case filing 

system. I certify that I have served all parties electronically or by another manner authorized by 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5(b)(2). 

 /s/ Arjun Mody__

 Arjun Mody 

Case 6:23-cv-00609-JDK Document 85 Filed 11/12/24 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 2289