Charles Clark, III v. Governor of New Jersey, 53 F.4th 769

Background

In March 2020 Governor Murphy issued EO 107 (plus AO 2020-4) imposing severe limits on in-person gatherings (a 10-person presumptive cap) without a religious-worship exception; violations carried criminal exposure.
Two New Jersey churches and their pastors (Solid Rock Baptist; Bible Baptist of Clementon) held services in defiance, were prosecuted, and sued in federal court seeking declaratory and injunctive relief (no damages) challenging EO 107/AO 2020-4 as discriminatory against religion.
From June 2020 through May 2021 the Governor progressively relaxed COVID limits (EOs 152, 156, 183, 219, 225, 239, 242), removing numerical limits on religious worship by May 2021; the state public-health emergency ended June 4, 2021; the prosecutions were later dismissed.
The District Court denied a preliminary injunction as moot (observing later orders had effectively granted the relief sought) and dismissed the amended complaint as moot; this appeal followed.
The Third Circuit majority affirmed: the rescission of the challenged orders left no effectual relief, and the State met its burden under the voluntary-cessation doctrine because recurrence of similar, religion-disfavoring restrictions was not reasonably likely given changed public-health conditions, the State’s subsequent conduct (including not reimposing limits during Delta/Omicron), and intervening Supreme Court free-exercise precedents.
Judge Matey dissented, arguing the State retained unilateral emergency power, gave no assurance it would not reimpose limits, and thus the government failed the heavy burden to show the conduct could not reasonably recur; he would have remanded for adjudication on the First Amendment claim.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Mootness: Is the challenge to EO 107/AO 2020-4 justiciable after the orders were rescinded?	The rescission is voluntary; the case is not moot because the government could reinstate restrictions.	The challenged orders were rescinded years ago; no prospective relief remains.	Moot — rescission removed any effectual relief.
Voluntary cessation exception: Must the State show it is "absolutely clear" the wrongful conduct cannot recur?	Plaintiffs: Yes; the State has the heavy burden and has not disavowed future reimposition.	Defendants: Changed health facts, post‑2021 practice, and legal developments make recurrence not reasonably likely.	Voluntary cessation does not save the case — State met its burden.
Ongoing prosecutions: Do criminal prosecutions or Younger abstention keep the dispute live?	Plaintiffs: Continued prosecutions created a continuing controversy.	Defendants: Prosecutions were voluntarily dismissed (and/or stayed); no continuing injury remains.	Prosecutions were dismissed; they do not defeat mootness; Younger abstention not implicated here.
Effect of intervening precedent (Roman Catholic Diocese, Tandon): Do those decisions make reimposition unlikely?	Plaintiffs: State previously acted inconsistently with those precedents and gave no binding assurance it will comply in future.	Defendants: Those precedents constrain future regulation (require neutrality/general applicability), reducing the likelihood of religion-disfavoring reimposition.	Court relied on those precedents as a factor supporting mootness (reimposition unlikely).

Key Cases Cited

Hartnett v. Pennsylvania State Educ. Ass'n, 963 F.3d 301 (3d Cir. 2020) (mootness and voluntary‑cessation framework in this circuit)
County of Butler v. Governor of Pennsylvania, 8 F.4th 226 (3d Cir. 2021) (mootness where changed public‑health and legal circumstances made recurrence unlikely)
Roman Cath. Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, 141 S. Ct. 63 (2020) (free‑exercise rule: laws favoring comparable secular activity trigger strict scrutiny)
Tandon v. Newsom, 141 S. Ct. 1294 (2021) (religious‑vs‑secular comparability and strict‑scrutiny guidance for COVID restrictions)
West Virginia v. EPA, 142 S. Ct. 2587 (2022) (government bears heavy burden to show voluntary cessation moots a case)
City of Mesquite v. Aladdin's Castle, Inc., 455 U.S. 283 (1982) (voluntary cessation exception to mootness)
Campbell‑Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 577 U.S. 153 (2016) (no effectual relief = mootness)
Eden, LLC v. Justice, 36 F.4th 166 (4th Cir. 2022) (COVID‑order challenges moot after rescission)
Brach v. Newsom, 38 F.4th 6 (9th Cir. 2022) (similar conclusion for rescinded COVID restrictions)