20 F.4th 1055
5th Cir.2021Background
- The ACA required employer-provided health plans to cover preventive services per HRSA guidelines; HHS rules implemented a contraceptive mandate and created limited church exemptions and a self‑certifying accommodation for some religious objectors.
- Plaintiffs (individuals and employers with religious objections to certain contraceptives) sued seeking to enjoin enforcement of the 2015 Rules (which required the accommodation) and to reinstate the broader 2017 Rules; the district court granted summary judgment and a nationwide permanent injunction effectively imposing the 2017 Rules.
- Nevada moved to intervene to defend the 2015 Rules and to appeal the district court’s merits orders; the district court denied intervention and entered final judgment; Nevada appealed the denial and other issues.
- The Supreme Court’s decision in Little Sisters of the Poor vacated prior nationwide injunctions and reinstated the 2017 Rules, rendering the underlying dispute in this appeal moot.
- The Fifth Circuit held the case moot, concluded Nevada should have been allowed to intervene as of right and had appellate standing to seek vacatur of the district-court judgment, and therefore vacated the judgment below and remanded with instructions to dismiss as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's (Nevada) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness of the dispute over the 2017 Rules | The case ended when federal defendants abandoned their appeal; Nevada lacks Article III standing so mootness need not alter injunctions | The case is not moot because states could later challenge or the executive could change rules, leaving the injunction with present effects | Moot — Little Sisters reinstated the 2017 Rules and removed any effective relief the court could grant; Article III case-or-controversy lacking |
| Authority and appropriateness of vacatur by this court | No jurisdiction to vacate because Nevada was never a party and lacked standing to bring the appeal | Denied intervention was erroneous; Nevada may seek vacatur to avoid preclusive effects of the district judgment | Vacatur is proper under Munsingwear/U.S. Bancorp equities; the court vacated the judgment and remanded to dismiss as moot |
| Whether Nevada should have been allowed to intervene under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a) | Nevada’s asserted interests are too attenuated, speculative, and not legally protectable | Nevada has direct fiscal and quasi‑sovereign interests from increased state costs and public‑health effects | District court erred; Nevada demonstrated a direct, legally protectable financial interest and should have been granted intervention as of right |
| Nevada's appellate standing to seek vacatur | Nevada failed to show injury from the district court’s classwide relief | Preclusive‑effect injury from the nationwide injunction suffices; vacatur would redress that injury | Nevada has standing to appeal based on preclusive‑effect injury; vacatur redresses that injury |
Key Cases Cited
- Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter & Paul Home v. Pennsylvania, 140 S. Ct. 2367 (2020) (Supreme Court vacating injunctions and reinstating the 2017 Rules)
- United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36 (1950) (established practice of vacatur when a case becomes moot on appeal)
- U.S. Bancorp Mortg. Co. v. Bonner Mall P’ship, 513 U.S. 18 (1994) (vacatur is equitable relief; courts must consider public interest and equities)
- Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. 682 (2014) (RFRA protection for closely held corporations; accommodation as less restrictive means)
- Zubik v. Burwell, 578 U.S. 403 (2016) (remand and direction to seek alternatives to reconcile religious objections and contraceptive access)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing requires concrete, particularized, and imminent injury)
- Knox v. Service Employees Int’l Union, 567 U.S. 298 (2012) (definition of mootness and effectual relief requirement)
- Wal–Mart Stores, Inc. v. Texas Alcoholic Beverage Comm’n, 834 F.3d 562 (5th Cir. 2016) (standards for intervention as of right under Rule 24)
- Staley v. Harris Cnty., 485 F.3d 305 (5th Cir. 2007) (equitable considerations for vacatur and inquiry into who caused mootness)