718 F.Supp.3d 69
D. Me.2024Background
- Plaintiffs, former Maine healthcare employees, challenged Maine's COVID-19 vaccine requirement for designated healthcare facility (DHCF) workers, claiming it lacked religious exemptions and violated their constitutional rights.
- The procedural history included three First Circuit appeals and two Supreme Court petitions; most claims and defendants were dismissed, leaving only Free Exercise (First Amendment) and Equal Protection (Fourteenth Amendment) claims against two state officials.
- In 2023, Maine removed COVID-19 from its DHCF worker immunization rule, following termination of both federal and state COVID-19 public health emergencies.
- The Maine Department of Health & Human Services cited changing scientific circumstances, declining hospitalizations and deaths, population immunity, and availability of treatments as reasons for repealing the requirement.
- Plaintiffs opposed dismissal as moot, contending the state’s repeal was a litigation tactic intended to evade judicial review, and sought leave to amend their complaint.
- The district court determined the repeal ended all harms alleged by plaintiffs and that no exceptions to the mootness doctrine applied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness (Rule 12(b)(1)) | Injuries continue, state repeal is litigation tactic, not genuine. | COVID-19 rule was repealed for public health reasons, not to evade suit. | Plaintiffs’ claims are moot due to rule’s repeal. |
| Scope of Claims | Sought to challenge statute and regulation broadly. | Only challenged as-applied to repealed COVID-19 reg., not facially. | Only as-applied challenge to repealed reg. considered. |
| Exception: Voluntary Cessation | State might reinstate COVID-19 vaccine requirement. | Decision based on public health changes, not on attempt to evade review. | Exception did not apply; repeal wasn’t litigation tactic. |
| Exception: Capable of Repetition | State retains power to reinstate requirement, so case isn't moot. | Plaintiffs presented only speculation about recurrence, not real threat. | Exception did not apply; threat of recurrence is remote. |
| Motion to Amend Complaint | Leave to amend should be granted to broaden or supplement claims. | No new facts or occurrences to justify amendment under Rule 15 or 15(d). | Leave to amend denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (standard for facial constitutional challenge)
- Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1 (discussion of mootness and advisory opinions)
- City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 (standard for "capable of repetition yet evading review" exception)
- Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Env’t Servs., 528 U.S. 167 (voluntary cessation exception to mootness)
- ACLU of Massachusetts v. U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, 705 F.3d 44 (analysis on mootness and declaratory relief)
- Air Line Pilots Ass’n, Int’l v. UAL Corp., 897 F.2d 1394 (effectual relief and mootness)