Democratic Executive Committee of Florida v. National Republican Senatorial Commitee, 950 F.3d 790

After the razor‑thin 2018 Florida U.S. Senate race and a statewide recount, plaintiffs (Democratic Executive Committee of Florida and Bill Nelson campaign) sued, challenging Florida’s mail‑in and provisional ballot signature‑match procedures under the Equal Protection Clause.
The district court entered a modified preliminary injunction permitting some ballots rejected for signature mismatch to be counted if voters timely used cure procedures; the NRSC intervened for defendants and sought an emergency stay of that injunction.
A three‑judge motions panel of this Court denied the NRSC’s emergency stay application by a 2–1 vote; that stay‑panel opinion was later published as Democratic Exec. Comm. of Fla. v. Lee.
Florida later enacted S.B. 7066, amending signature‑match procedures (including training and extended cure deadlines), the plaintiffs dismissed, and the state withdrew its appeal, rendering the underlying dispute moot.
The NRSC, as sole remaining appellant, moved under United States v. Munsingwear to vacate both the district court preliminary injunction and this Court’s prior stay‑panel opinion to prevent those opinions from spawning legal consequences.
The panel held it retained jurisdiction to consider vacatur but denied both vacatur requests and dismissed the appeal as moot.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing of NRSC to pursue appeal/vacatur	NRSC lacks independent Article III standing once state withdrew appeal; cannot "piggyback" on state	NRSC asserted organizational standing by diverting personnel/time to address the injunction (citing Arcia)	NRSC has asserted independent standing sufficient to permit consideration of its motions
Whether court may act after case becomes moot	Mootness deprives court of power to grant relief	Appellate courts retain authority to consider Munsingwear vacatur requests (Bancorp/§2106)	Court retains jurisdiction to consider vacatur motions despite mootness
Vacatur of stay‑panel opinion denying emergency stay	Vacatur needed to prevent the opinion from having collateral legal consequences and to avoid forcing NRSC to acquiesce	Stay‑panel opinions are tentative, non‑adjudicative, and normally do not produce res judicata or precedential effects	Denied vacatur of stay‑panel opinion—such opinions ordinarily do not spawn binding collateral consequences
Vacatur of district court preliminary injunction order	Munsingwear requires vacatur when appeal is mooted to avoid leaving an unreviewable judgment in place	Interlocutory appeals are treated differently; practice is to dismiss as moot without vacatur (Brooks/Ethredge)	Denied vacatur of district court order; appeal dismissed as moot and underlying preliminary injunction not vacated

United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36 (1950) (vacatur appropriate when mootness prevents review)
U.S. Bancorp Mortgage Co. v. Bonner Mall P’ship, 513 U.S. 18 (1994) (appellate courts retain procedural authority post‑mootness under equitable principles and §2106)
Virginia House of Delegates v. Bethune‑Hill, 139 S. Ct. 1945 (2019) (intervenor must independently show standing to appeal)
Hollingsworth v. Perry, 570 U.S. 693 (2013) (generalized interest in a law is insufficient for standing)
Arcia v. Florida Sec’y of State, 772 F.3d 1335 (11th Cir. 2014) (organizations suffer cognizable injury by diverting resources to educate voters about election laws)
Democratic Exec. Comm. of Fla. v. Lee, 915 F.3d 1312 (11th Cir. 2019) (this Court’s published stay‑panel opinion denying emergency stay)
Brooks v. Georgia State Bd. of Elections, 59 F.3d 1114 (11th Cir. 1995) (moot interlocutory appeals are often dismissed without vacatur)
Ethredge v. Hail, 996 F.2d 1173 (11th Cir. 1993) (similar principle regarding interlocutory appeals and vacatur)
CAMP Legal Def. Fund, Inc. v. City of Atlanta, 451 F.3d 1257 (11th Cir. 2006) (discussing Munsingwear vacatur rationale)
FTC v. Food Town Stores, Inc., 547 F.2d 247 (4th Cir. 1977) (stay orders are not final adjudications of the merits)