126 F.4th 747
1st Cir.2025Background
- Maine healthcare workers challenged the state's COVID-19 vaccine mandate, which applied to certain healthcare workers and did not allow religious exemptions.
- The mandate was put into effect by emergency rule in August 2021, ceased to be enforced as of July 2023, and was formally repealed in September 2023.
- Plaintiffs were terminated from healthcare employment after refusing the vaccine on religious grounds and alleged constitutional violations under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
- The district court denied preliminary relief and later dismissed the case for failure to state a claim; on appeal, some claims were revived (Free Exercise and Equal Protection), but while pending, the rule was repealed.
- After repeal, the district court dismissed the suit as moot and denied leave to amend, finding no exception to mootness applied.
- The First Circuit affirmed, finding no live controversy remained and that no exception to mootness pertained.
Issues
| Issue | Lowe's Argument | Gagné-Holmes's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness – Live controversy | The case is not moot; mandate could recur or be revived. | Challenge is moot since the regulation was repealed. | Claim is moot; COVID-19 vaccine mandate repealed. |
| Voluntary cessation exception | Repeal was timed to avoid litigation; could reimpose rule. | Repeal followed scientific and federal developments. | Exception does not apply; evidence supports public health rationale. |
| Capable of repetition yet evading review | Regulation could be quickly reinstated. | Unlikely future mandate; lengthy mandate sufficed for review. | Exception does not apply; no reasonable expectation of recurrence. |
| Facial challenge to enabling statute | Complaint challenges statute itself, not just regulation. | Only regulation challenged, not statute or other vaccines. | No facial challenge to statute exists; only regulation was challenged. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bos. Bit Labs, Inc. v. Baker, 11 F.4th 3 (1st Cir. 2021) (addresses mootness when COVID-19 restrictions are rescinded)
- Does 1-6 v. Mills, 16 F.4th 20 (1st Cir. 2021) (original denial of preliminary relief in Maine mandate case)
- Mangual v. Rotger-Sabat, 317 F.3d 45 (1st Cir. 2003) (mootness requires actual controversy at all stages)
- Town of Portsmouth v. Lewis, 813 F.3d 54 (1st Cir. 2016) (discusses standards for mootness in injunctive actions)
- Calvary Chapel of Bangor v. Mills, 52 F.4th 40 (1st Cir. 2022) (repeal of pandemic rules and implications for mootness)
- Gulf of Me. Fishermen's All. v. Daley, 292 F.3d 84 (1st Cir. 2002) (capable of repetition yet evading review exception explained)
- ACLU of Mass. v. U.S. Conf. of Cath. Bishops, 705 F.3d 44 (1st Cir. 2013) (discusses when declaratory relief claims are moot)