John Does, Mary Roes and Similarly Situated Victims v. Barr

Background

Petitioners John Does, Mary Roes, and similarly situated victims filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 1651 seeking a writ of mandamus. A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary court order requiring a government officer or agency to perform a clear, nondiscretionary duty. Petitioners sought an order directing Attorney General William Barr to form a Department of Justice task force to investigate officials whom they alleged had contributed to unnecessary COVID-19 deaths by banning or restricting hydroxychloroquine.

Petitioners also sought an injunction removing restrictions on hydroxychloroquine and making it available to people in the United States infected with the coronavirus. They requested declarations that restrictive state executive orders were unconstitutional and that people had constitutional rights to receive hydroxychloroquine. On May 21, 2020, they separately asked for an order requiring the respondents to explain why the court should not intervene immediately and for an in-person hearing at which scientific experts could testify.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that petitioners had not shown either a clear, nondiscretionary duty owed to them or a clear and indisputable right to mandamus relief. The court noted that petitioners cited no authority establishing that restrictions on an experimental drug during an infectious-disease outbreak violated the Fourteenth Amendment or 42 U.S.C. § 1981. It also found no authority giving the court mandamus jurisdiction to order the Attorney General or the Department of Justice to conduct the requested criminal investigation.

The court further explained that the federal mandamus statute authorizes district courts to compel federal officers or agencies, not state officials. To the extent petitioners sought to compel New York, Nevada, or other states to lift restrictions, that request therefore fell outside the statute’s scope.

The court treated the request to block state restrictions as a possible motion for a preliminary injunction. A preliminary injunction is an order issued before final judgment to prevent alleged harm, and it requires a likelihood of success on the merits. The court found that no state or local official was named as a party and that petitioners had not pleaded a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court nevertheless stated that, even if those problems were corrected, petitioners had not shown a likelihood of success. Relying on the principle that states have broad powers to protect public health and safety during infectious-disease outbreaks, the court found that petitioners had not shown that the restrictions lacked a real connection to public health or plainly violated fundamental rights.

The court also denied declaratory relief. It exercised its discretion not to issue declarations after concluding that petitioners had not plausibly established a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment or 42 U.S.C. § 1981.

Ruling and Disposition

The court denied the petition for a writ of mandamus, the requests for injunctive and declaratory relief, and the motion for an order to show cause and a hearing. Judge Ronnie Abrams directed the clerk to terminate the motion at Docket Entry 6 and close the case. The opinion does not state that any of these denials were with or without prejudice.