Chad Thompson v. Richard DeWine, 7 F.4th 521

Three Ohio petitioners sought to place local marijuana-decriminalization initiatives on November 3, 2020 ballots.
Ohio law required original ink signatures witnessed by the circulator, a minimum number tied to past gubernatorial turnout, and submission at least 110 days before the election.
COVID-19 and Ohio stay-at-home orders hindered in-person signature gathering, prompting plaintiffs to sue state officials for declaratory and injunctive relief tied specifically to the 2020 election (including requests to place initiatives on the 2020 ballot, reduce signature thresholds, extend deadlines, or permit electronic signatures).
The district court enjoined the ink/witness requirements, extended deadlines, and ordered acceptance of electronic signatures; this injunction was stayed and later reversed by this court in prior Sixth Circuit opinions.
After the election, defendants moved to dismiss as moot; the Sixth Circuit concluded plaintiffs’ claims are moot, vacated the district court’s merits dismissal, and remanded with instructions to dismiss the case as moot.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Mootness of injunctive relief (placing initiatives on 2020 ballot)	Relief tied to Nov 3, 2020 was necessary because pandemic prevented signature gathering	Election passed; court cannot grant the requested election-specific relief	Moot — cannot place initiatives on past ballot; injunctive requests tied to 2020 are moot
Mootness of declaratory judgment	Plaintiffs sought a declaration that laws, as applied during COVID-19 to the Nov 2020 election, violated the Constitution	The emergency orders ended and the election is over, so no live controversy exists	Moot — no substantial controversy of immediacy and reality for declaratory relief
Applicability of the capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review exception	COVID persists and plaintiffs plan future initiatives, so the problem may recur	The 2020 circumstances (pandemic timing, stay-at-home orders) were unique; recurrence is speculative	Exception does not apply — plaintiffs cannot show a reasonable expectation of facing the same action again
Remedy for mootness	N/A (plaintiffs sought merits relief)	Dismissal as moot and vacatur of the district court’s merits dismissal per Munsingwear	Court vacated the district court’s order dismissing on the merits and remanded with instructions to dismiss as moot

Preiser v. Newkirk, 422 U.S. 395 (declaratory relief requires an actual, immediate controversy)
Federal Election Comm’n v. Wis. Right to Life, Inc., 551 U.S. 449 (standard for capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review)
Memphis A. Philip Randolph Institute v. Hargett, 2 F.4th 548 (COVID-era election mootness and recurrence analysis)
Lawrence v. Blackwell, 430 F.3d 368 (election over moots relief seeking ballot placement)
Operation King’s Dream v. Connerly, 501 F.3d 584 (post-election mootness in ballot-access suits)
Chafin v. Chafin, 568 U.S. 165 (no jurisdiction where court cannot grant effectual relief)
Brockington v. Rhodes, 396 U.S. 41 (limited, election-specific relief becomes moot when election ends)
Los Angeles County v. Davis, 440 U.S. 625 (mootness doctrine when issues no longer live)
Libertarian Party of Ohio v. Blackwell, 462 F.3d 579 (Article III case-or-controversy requirement in election disputes)
In re 2016 Primary Election, 836 F.3d 584 (capable-of-repetition application in election contexts)
United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36 (vacatur and remand when a case becomes moot)
Thompson v. DeWine, 959 F.3d 804 (Sixth Circuit stay of district-court injunction)