KEY LITIGATION

Donovan v. Vance 

Silent Majority Foundation represented over 300 United States Department of Energy workers and contractors to challenge President Biden’s Executive Orders mandating the COVID-19 shot to maintain employment. SMF brought this case in federal court in the Eastern District of Washington, and the relief we sought, an injunction to cease the mandate, was denied. We appealed that decision to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, and the Court upheld the decision to deny the injunction. 

The 9th Circuit’s ruling was interesting as the Court held that: 

• Because the Executive Orders had been rescinded by Executive Order 14099 (May 12, 2023), the case was moot (no longer live) as related to the Executive Orders; 

• The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”) claims were not moot, but that the RFRA claims were precluded by sovereign immunity; 

• The Court remanded (sent back) the case to the District Court (where we filed) with instructions to vacate (void) all non-RFRA claims from the trial court’s order. 

We’re pleased that the Circuit Court vacated the non-RFRA portions of the District Court’s order as it will no longer remain law. As to the RFRA claims, after lengthy consideration, we determined not to appeal those issues to the US Supreme Court, allowing the case to end with the 9th Circuit’s decision. 

Bazzrea v. Mayorkas

Silent Majority Foundation was part of a team of freedom-fighters standing for over 200 United States Coast Guard men and women in a case to save their careers from the US government’s COVID-19 shot mandate. Our team filed a Preliminary Injunction and a request for an evidentiary hearing that would have required the government to turn over documents about batches of the shots. We alleged that the shot the government claimed to have was not available in the US and that even if the Coast Guard had the correct shots, it failed to store the shots according to manufacture’s specifications (we believe that the government failed to store the shots at manufacturer required temperatures). With the passage of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2022, Congress prohibited the Department of Defense from continuing the shot mandate, and the judge dismissed the case as it was moot. Many of our plaintiffs are still fighting in the US Court of Claims for backpay and restoration of benefits in a case led by our colleagues. SMF is not a part of that challenge as our goal was to protect employment. 

Oregon Firearms Federation, Inc. et al v. KOTEK

Silent Majority Foundation filed an amicus brief (a brief that informs the court on specific issues) challenging Oregon’s Large Capacity Magazine ban, which was a portion of Oregon Measure 114. SMF joined as an amicus in this measure as it tracked with the work we were doing at the time in Brumback v. Ferguson (our first Large Capacity Magazine ban case). In addition to filing an amicus brief on the (in)validity of the magazine ban, SMF worked closely with the team that filed the case on the preliminary injunction, which was not awarded. Unfortunately, the judge denied the preliminary and permanent injunctions requested by our colleagues.

RE: spanaway fitness

Silent Majority Foundation represented the owner of Spanaway Fitness, a fitness center in Spanaway, Washington. This successful fitness center also wellness professionals and a Licensed Massage Practitioner with active patients. During Governor Inslee's "Stay Home Stay Healthy" campaign during COVID-19, our client operated his business under the guidelines set forth by the governor to remain compliant,  yet the State of Washington issued a cease and desist letter as they claim the gym was a “threat” to the public health and safety of customers and employees. The State levied a $106,029 fine to our client for operating for 10 days during the shut down. We challenged the fine, and our client ended settling for $15,000, rather than risk a trial and appeal. 

Silent Majority Foundation v. Inslee

Silent Majority Foundation filed a lawsuit challenging Governor Inslee’s March 11 and 23, 2022 COVID-19 emergency proclamations. Our challenge was based on the requirement that the Governor’s declaration of a state of emergency RCW 43.06.010 requires the Governor to make a finding that a state of emergency exists prior to declaring one. SMF challenged the issuance of these orders as the COVID cases were low or non-existent in many counties at the time, and we believed that the Governor’s declaration of the state of emergency “in all counties” was unsubstantiated. We also believed that order had been restored to the areas affected (legal terms) due to these low COVID cases. While the Court did not grant our relief, there were some positive aspects: 

• The court agreed that the governor must identify a state of emergency by specifically identifying the areas affected and that the governor must terminate once order has been restored to the identified areas affected. 

• However, the court concluded that the phrase "for all counties" identified the affected area. 

• Finally, the Court concluded that because the challenge to the Proclamation “surrounds an airborne virus that may have impacts across county lines,” all counties sufficiently described the affected areas. 

SMF appealed the decision to the Appellate Court.  Our appeal was denied as the challenged Proclamations had been rescinded and the case was moot.  The court issued an unpublished ruling (one which goes into the archives but cannot be cited). 

One final side note from this case: SMF sought the deposition of Jay Inslee’s attorney, Kathryn Leathers, based on some of her email correspondence about the Governor’s pandemic decision-making. The State opposed the deposition and sought a protective order (an order from the court declaring Ms. Leathers off-limits). The Court stated that there was good basis for the deposition and that if the case proceeded (at that time, it had not been dismissed), that we would be able to take the deposition. 

re: scott miller, p.a.

The Washington Medical Commission (WMC) revoked Mr. Miller’s Physician’s Assistant license on an emergency basis for his treatment of COVID-19 patients with Ivermectin. Silent Majority Foundation came into the case after the emergency rescission of his license and worked with another freedom-fighting attorney to save Mr. Miller’s license. Unfortunately, after countless hours and nearly a year of litigation, Mr. Miller’s license was permanently revoked by the WMC.  SMF appealed the decision to the Clark County Superior Court. The appeal was unsuccessful, and Mr. Miller determined not to appeal the decision to the Washington Court of Appeals. SMF appreciates the opportunity to have worked alongside Mr. Miller, who saved 1,000s of lives during the pandemic.