Harris v. University of Massachusetts, Lowell, 43 F.4th 187

Plaintiffs Hunter Harris (UMass Lowell) and Cora Cluett (UMass Boston) sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to enjoin university COVID-19 vaccination requirements.
Both policies required vaccination or an exemption to be on campus; Cluett sought a religious exemption which was denied on appeal; Harris did not seek an exemption.
The district court denied a preliminary injunction and dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. Plaintiffs appealed.
While the appeal was pending, Harris transferred from UMass Lowell and Cluett graduated from UMass Boston; neither is subject to the challenged policies.
The First Circuit concluded the claims are moot because no prospective relief could redress the plaintiffs and no exceptions to mootness apply; appeal dismissed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the students' claims for injunctive relief are moot	Harris and Cluett argued their constitutional claims remain justiciable	UMass argued plaintiffs are no longer subject to the policies, so no prospective relief can redress them	Moot: no ongoing conduct to enjoin because plaintiffs left schools
Whether requests for attorney's fees or general prayer avoid mootness	Plaintiffs relied on fee/cost requests and general prayer for "other relief"	UMass argued fees/costs and vague prayers cannot create a live controversy	Held: attorney's fees/costs and a general prayer cannot preserve moot equitable claims
Whether the "capable of repetition, yet evading review" exception applies	Plaintiffs suggested Harris might return to UMass Lowell	UMass argued plaintiffs made no showing of reasonable expectation of repetition specific to them	Held: exception does not apply; plaintiffs failed to show reasonable expectation they would be subjected to same action again
Whether plaintiffs could amend complaint on appeal to seek damages to avoid mootness	Plaintiffs argued amendment/monetary relief could preserve the case	UMass and court noted no damages claim was pled or sought below and amendment at appeal is improper	Held: plaintiffs cannot salvage mootness by belatedly seeking damages; raise-or-waive and Eleventh Amendment concerns bar that route

Chafin v. Chafin, 568 U.S. 165 (mootness requires a live case or controversy at all stages)
Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc., 568 U.S. 85 (no jurisdiction where issues are not live)
Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43 (controversy must exist through appeals)
Preiser v. Newkirk, 422 U.S. 395 (declaratory relief requires substantial, immediate controversy)
Pietrangelo v. Sununu, 15 F.4th 103 (1st Cir. 2021) (Article III justiciability and mootness principles)
Klaassen v. Trs. of Ind. Univ., 24 F.4th 638 (7th Cir. 2022) (student vaccine challenges dismissed as moot)
Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478 (capable-of-repetition exception elements)
ACLU of Mass. v. U.S. Conf. of Cath. Bishops, 705 F.3d 44 (1st Cir. 2013) (declaratory relief and immediacy requirement)
Thomas R.W. v. Mass. Dep't of Ed., 130 F.3d 477 (1st Cir. 1997) (damages can prevent mootness but must be pled)
Fox v. Bd. of Trs. of State Univ. of N.Y., 42 F.3d 135 (2d Cir. 1994) (former students' prospective claims are moot)