County of Butler v. Governor of Pennsylvania, 20-2936

Between March and July 2020 Pennsylvania's Governor and Secretary of Health issued overlapping emergency directives (stay‑at‑home, business closures, secular congregation limits).
Plaintiffs (counties, businesses, individuals, and elected officials) challenged three pairs of substantially identical Governor/Secretary orders in federal court; the district court held the orders unconstitutional.
Defendants appealed to the Third Circuit while some COVID circumstances, public health tools (masks, treatments, vaccines), and vaccination rates (over 60% of Pennsylvanians vaccinated) changed.
Pennsylvania voters amended the state constitution and the General Assembly passed a concurrent resolution restricting the Governor’s emergency authority and terminating the March 6, 2020 disaster proclamation.
The challenged orders expired by their own terms while the appeal was pending, leaving no operative orders for the court to enjoin or redress.
The Third Circuit therefore addressed whether the appeal was moot and, if so, whether vacatur of the district court judgment was appropriate.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the appeal is moot because the challenged orders expired and the Governor’s emergency power was curtailed	The dispute remains live because the Secretary still claims disease‑prevention authority and future orders could be issued	The orders have expired and the Governor’s unilateral emergency power has been restricted; there is no mechanism to repeat the alleged harm	Appeal is moot — no effectual relief can be granted
Whether the voluntary cessation exception to mootness applies	Plaintiffs effectively conceded this exception does not apply here	Orders expired by their own terms, not as litigation response	Voluntary cessation exception does not apply
Whether the "capable of repetition yet evading review" exception applies	Plaintiffs argue future, similar orders are possible because the Secretary retains authority	Defendants argue changed public‑health circumstances and altered legal authority make recurrence unreasonable	Exception does not apply; plaintiffs failed to show reasonable expectation of recurrence
Whether the district court’s judgment should be vacated under Munsingwear upon dismissal for mootness	Plaintiffs implied vacatur not appropriate if expiration was manipulative	Defendants contend expiration and constitutional/legislative changes occurred for reasons beyond the parties’ control	Vacate the district court judgment and remand with instructions to dismiss the complaint as moot

In re World Imports Ltd., 820 F.3d 576 (3d Cir. 2016) (defining when events during appeal render relief impossible and moot)
Rendell v. Rumsfeld, 484 F.3d 236 (3d Cir. 2007) (mootness when law no longer provides a mechanism to repeat alleged harm)
Spell v. Edwards, 962 F.3d 175 (5th Cir. 2020) (expired orders are "off the books" and present no live injury)
Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478 (1982) (burden for "capable of repetition yet evading review" requires reasonable expectation of recurrence)
Belitskus v. Pizzingrilli, 343 F.3d 632 (3d Cir. 2003) (burden on party asserting the exception to mootness)
United States v. Munsingwear, 340 U.S. 36 (1950) (framework for vacatur when a case becomes moot on appeal)
Khodara Env’t, Inc. ex rel. Eagle Env’t L.P. v. Beckman, 237 F.3d 186 (3d Cir. 2001) (vacatur appropriate absent evidence of manipulation)
U.S. Bancorp Mortgage Co. v. Bonner Mall Partnership, 513 U.S. 18 (1994) (consider whether mootness resulted from the party's own actions when deciding vacatur)
Lightner ex rel. NLRB v. 1621 Route 22 W. Operating Co., LLC, 729 F.3d 235 (3d Cir. 2013) (vacatur analysis and manipulating the legal system)
Marcavage v. Nat’l Park Serv., 666 F.3d 856 (3d Cir. 2012) (presumption that government officials act in good faith)