Herndon v. Little, 1:20-cv-00205

Plaintiffs challenged Idaho COVID-19 public-health orders as violating multiple federal and state constitutional provisions and RLUIPA, focusing chiefly on early orders that prohibited in-person religious gatherings and restricted interstate travel.
The Director issued a statewide Stay Home Order in late March 2020 that barred religious gatherings and nonessential travel; later guidance and Stay Healthy Orders (beginning May 1) progressively lifted those specific prohibitions and permitted in-person worship with distancing.
By mid-May the complained-of gathering and travel restrictions had been removed; subsequent Stay Healthy Orders (including Orders 4 and 5) continued to exempt religious activities even when other restrictions were tightened.
Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint asserting injunctive and declaratory relief but did not seek emergency relief such as a TRO; Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction/mootness.
The Court concluded the challenged restrictions were no longer in effect, that their reimposition was speculative and unlikely, and that mootness (including voluntary cessation and capable-of-repetition exceptions) did not preserve jurisdiction.
Result: Motion to dismiss granted; case dismissed without prejudice (Plaintiffs may refile if restrictions are reimposed).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Article III jurisdiction / mootness	Ongoing injury from threat that orders can be reimposed (boilerplate language gives continuing harm)	Challenged prohibitions were rescinded; no live controversy exists	Case is moot; dismissal without prejudice
Speculative future injury / reimposition	Pandemic conditions and order language make reimposition likely	Speculation is insufficient; past conduct alone does not sustain relief	Speculation insufficient to avoid mootness
Voluntary cessation exception	Defendants could resume restrictions once pressure eases	Changes were not driven by this litigation and defendants met burden to show nonrecurrence	Exception does not apply; voluntary cessation moots case
"Capable of repetition, yet evading review" exception	Pandemic restrictions are recurring and short-lived, so exception should apply	Plaintiffs cannot show reasonable expectation they will face same action again	Exception not met; no reasonable expectation of repetition

Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663 (Article III requires a live controversy)
All. for the Wild Rockies v. Savage, 897 F.3d 1025 (mootness requires a live controversy throughout litigation)
United States v. Sanchez-Gomez, 138 S. Ct. 1532 (case or controversy ends when matter becomes moot)
Dufresne v. Veneman, 114 F.3d 952 (speculative future government conduct insufficient to avoid mootness)
Mayfield v. Dalton, 109 F.3d 1423 (speculative contingencies do not sustain injunctive relief)
Spell v. Edwards, 962 F.3d 175 (expired pandemic orders mooted injunction claims)
City of L.A. v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 (past exposure to illegal conduct alone cannot support injunctive relief)
Norman-Bloodsaw v. Lawrence Berkeley Lab., 135 F.3d 1260 (voluntary cessation mootness test)
United States v. Brandau, 578 F.3d 1064 (voluntary cessation doctrine explained)
Kingdomware Techs., Inc. v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1969 (standards for "capable of repetition, yet evading review")