Ark. Dep't of Human Servs. v. Ledgerwood, 571 S.W.3d 1

DHS promulgated a 2015 ARChoices Medicaid waiver rule; circuit court temporarily enjoined that rule as to the named plaintiffs and later entered a permanent injunction against the rule in its entirety for failing to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
This Court in Ledgerwood I previously upheld the TRO enjoining the 2015 rule as applied to the named plaintiffs.
DHS appealed the permanent injunction. While the appeal was pending, DHS promulgated a new final rule effective October 1, 2018.
The circuit court found the new rule was properly promulgated under the APA and dissolved the permanent injunction during the appeal briefing.
Because the injunction no longer exists and the new rule remains in effect, the Court concluded there is no live controversy and the appeal is moot.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the appeal is moot after dissolution of the permanent injunction	Ledgerwood (plaintiffs) argued the injunction invalidated DHS’s methodology and the appeal should be decided on the merits	DHS argued new rule moots the appeal but sought to preserve review of legal questions about APA compliance	The Court held the appeal is moot because the injunction was dissolved and a new, valid rule is in effect
Whether exceptions to mootness apply: "capable of repetition yet evading review"	Plaintiffs contended the court should resolve the standard for "substantial compliance" because DHS might repeat the conduct	DHS argued the issue is capable of repetition and thus fits the exception	The Court declined to apply the exception, noting the controversy ended after DHS substantially complied and the factual nature of future cases makes the exception inappropriate here
Whether exception for matters of substantial public interest applies (including characterization of DHS’s prior act as ultra vires)	Plaintiffs urged judicial resolution to prevent future litigation and clarify APA standards	DHS argued the public-interest exception applies because the questions are important and likely to recur	The Court refused to exercise the public-interest exception, finding no prudential basis to decide the questions in these circumstances

Ark. Dep't of Human Servs. v. Ledgerwood, 530 S.W.3d 336 (Ark. 2017) (prior appellate decision addressing the TRO against the 2015 rule)
Terry v. White, 288 S.W.3d 199 (Ark. 2008) (mootness doctrine and prohibition on advisory opinions)
Protect Fayetteville v. City of Fayetteville, 566 S.W.3d 105 (Ark. 2019) (describing exceptions to mootness)
Wright v. Keffer, 890 S.W.2d 271 (Ark. 1995) (defining the "capable of repetition yet evading review" exception)
Duhon v. Gravett, 790 S.W.2d 155 (Ark. 1990) (public-interest exception to mootness)

Disposition: Appeal dismissed as moot.