Bd of Trustees Glazing Health v. Shannon Chambers, 941 F.3d 1195

In 2015 Nevada enacted S.B. 223 imposing administrative requirements on labor-union trusts for debt collection; trustees sued and the district court held S.B. 223 preempted by ERISA.
While the appeal was pending, Nevada repealed S.B. 223 and enacted S.B. 338, expressly aiming to avoid ERISA-preemption problems and omitting the provisions the district court found preempted.
A three-judge panel was divided on whether the repeal rendered the appeal moot; the Ninth Circuit granted en banc rehearing.
The en banc court addressed whether repeal/amendment/expiration of legislation creates a presumption of mootness and what showing overcomes that presumption.
The court held that repeal/amendment presumptively moots a challenge unless there is a reasonable, record-based expectation the legislature will reenact the same or substantially similar provision; applying that rule, the court found no such expectation and dismissed the appeal as moot.
The case was dismissed and remanded with instructions to vacate the district-court judgment under United States v. Munsingwear, Inc.; all pending motions were denied as moot.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Proper mootness framework when legislature repeals or amends challenged law	Repeal prompted by litigation does not automatically moot the case; courts should guard against strategic evasion and require a high showing to dismiss	Legislative repeal/amendment should be treated differently from private voluntary cessation; presume government acted in good faith and repeal presumptively moots the case	Adopted presumption that repeal/amendment/expiration presumptively moots the challenge; challenger must show a reasonable expectation of reenactment (based on record), not a virtual certainty
Application to S.B. 223 / S.B. 338	Repeal did not render case moot because litigation prodded legislative change and reenactment was a realistic possibility	Nevada acted in good faith to address ERISA concerns; S.B. 338 omitted the preempted provisions, so no reasonable expectation of reenactment	No record evidence of a reasonable expectation of reenactment; appeal is moot; district-court judgment vacated and complaint dismissed per Munsingwear

Friends of the Earth v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs., 528 U.S. 167 (2000) (voluntary cessation doctrine and standards for mootness)
United States v. W. T. Grant Co., 345 U.S. 629 (1953) (voluntary cessation may not moot a case if defendant free to resume conduct)
City of Mesquite v. Aladdin’s Castle, Inc., 455 U.S. 283 (1982) (refusal to dismiss where city indicated intent to reenact offensive ordinance)
Northeastern Fla. Chapter, Associated Gen. Contractors v. City of Jacksonville, 508 U.S. 656 (1993) (repeal/replacement did not moot challenge where new ordinance still disadvantaged plaintiffs)
Lewis v. Cont’l Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472 (1990) (legislative amendments can render a case moot)
Burke v. Barnes, 479 U.S. 361 (1987) (expiration of legislation can render a case moot)
Kremens v. Bartley, 431 U.S. 119 (1977) (repeal and replacement can moot a challenge)
United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36 (1950) (vacatur of judgment when case becomes moot on appeal)
McCorvey v. Hill, 385 F.3d 846 (5th Cir. 2004) (repeal generally moots statutory challenge absent evidence of likely reenactment)