Mark Spell v. John Edwards
962 F.3d 175
5th Cir.2020Background
- Governor Edwards issued COVID-19 stay-at-home proclamations that, during April–May 2020, limited gatherings to ten people; later proclamations phased reopening and allowed higher church occupancy (25% then 50%).
- Pastor Mark Anthony Spell and Life Tabernacle Church repeatedly held in-person services; Spell was arrested and issued misdemeanor summons; plaintiffs sued seeking injunctive relief and damages challenging the ten-person limit.
- The district court denied a preliminary injunction on May 15, 2020, but noted the challenged orders were set to expire that day; plaintiffs amended their complaint after the orders were lifted and then appealed.
- Plaintiffs sought an injunction pending appeal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 8(a)(1)(C) without first seeking relief from the district court.
- The Fifth Circuit held the appeal moot because the challenged orders expired by their own terms, denied the Rule 8 injunction, dismissed the appeal, and vacated the district court’s denial of preliminary relief; the plaintiffs’ damages claim remains pending in district court.
- Judge Ho concurred in the dismissal but warned that future merits review may require strict scrutiny under the Free Exercise Clause, especially given apparent differential treatment of protesters versus worshippers.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appeal is moot because the challenged stay-at-home orders expired | Spell: Orders caused ongoing injury and appeal should proceed | Edwards: Orders expired by their own terms, so no live controversy | Appeal is moot; injunction denied; appeal dismissed; district court order vacated |
| Whether the "capable of repetition, yet evading review" exception saves the claim | Spell: Reclosures could recur and are too short to litigate | Edwards: Reimposition is speculative; trend is reopening | Exception does not apply—plaintiffs failed to show reasonable expectation of recurrence |
| Whether an injunction pending appeal under FRAP 8 should issue | Spell: Entitled to stay of enforcement while appeal pending | Edwards: Orders expired; plaintiffs also did not seek district-court stay first as rule requires | Rule 8 motion denied (also procedural failure to seek district-court relief first) |
| Free Exercise constitutional challenge to gathering limits | Spell: Limits burden religious exercise and are not applied evenhandedly (protesters tolerated) | Edwards: Public-health measures are permissible in a pandemic (Jacobson) | Merits not decided; concurring judge signaled that unequal exemptions could trigger strict scrutiny in future review |
Key Cases Cited
- Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663 (2016) (federal courts must decide live cases or controversies)
- Knox v. Service Employees Int'l Union, Local 1000, 567 U.S. 298 (2012) (describing mootness when no effectual relief can be granted)
- Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc., 568 U.S. 85 (2013) (voluntary cessation does not automatically moot a case)
- Trump v. Hawaii, 138 S. Ct. 2392 (2018) (claims challenging provisions that expired by their own terms are moot)
- Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993) (laws that exempt comparable conduct but burden religion must meet strict scrutiny)
- Burke v. Barnes, 479 U.S. 361 (1987) (issues mooted when a statute expires by its own terms)
- Opulent Life Church v. City of Holly Springs, 697 F.3d 279 (5th Cir. 2012) (post-suit repeal may not moot a claim depending on likelihood of recurrence)
- Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) (government authority to take public-health measures in a pandemic)