15 F.4th 103
1st Cir.2021Background
- New Hampshire allocated scarce early COVID-19 vaccines by phase (age, occupation, medical risk) and set aside up to 10% for an "equity plan" targeting high-risk census tracts identified using factors including "minority status and language."
- Residents in designated tracts could qualify for equity-plan doses by meeting criteria including identifying as a racial or ethnic minority.
- James E. Pietrangelo II (white, then 55) sued, alleging racial discrimination, and sought a preliminary injunction enjoining the equity plan.
- The district court denied preliminary injunctive relief, concluding Pietrangelo failed to show a substantial likelihood of standing.
- By the time of appeal, vaccines were available to all residents 16+, supply far outstripped demand, and Pietrangelo had scheduled and received an appointment; the First Circuit took judicial notice of state and CDC vaccination data.
- The First Circuit dismissed the appeal as moot, holding that no effectual relief could be provided and that mootness exceptions did not apply.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness of PI challenge to equity-plan allocation | Pietrangelo: challenge remains live; allocation still occurs and harms him | NH: vaccines now widely available; Pietrangelo got appointment; court cannot grant relief | Dismissed as moot — no effectual relief exists |
| Voluntary-cessation exception to mootness | Pietrangelo: NH’s change may be voluntary and could resume discriminatory policy | NH: change defeats relief; mootness rests on inability to grant relief, not merely state action | Exception inapplicable; moot because relief unavailable |
| Speculative future injury (boosters / increased exposure) | Pietrangelo: may need booster; equity plan could increase exposure to breakthrough infections | NH: booster speculation and infection risk are conjectural given abundant vaccine supply | Speculative injuries are insufficiently concrete to prevent mootness |
| Capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review | Pietrangelo: future shortages could recur, evading review | NH: no reason to expect future supply crunch; factual record shows sustained supply | Exception does not apply; controversy not shown to be repeatable yet evade review |
Key Cases Cited
- ACLU of Mass. v. U.S. Conf. of Cath. Bishops, 705 F.3d 44 (1st Cir. 2013) (defining mootness and prohibition on advisory opinions)
- D.H.L. Assocs., Inc. v. O'Gorman, 199 F.3d 50 (1st Cir. 1999) (mootness principles)
- Horizon Bank & Tr. Co. v. Massachusetts, 391 F.3d 48 (1st Cir. 2004) (effectual relief requirement for Article III cases)
- Equal Means Equal v. Ferriero, 3 F.4th 24 (1st Cir. 2021) (concrete-injury standard for standing)
- FEC v. Wis. Right to Life, Inc., 551 U.S. 449 (2007) (capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review doctrine)
- United States v. Hoyts Cinemas Corp., 380 F.3d 558 (1st Cir. 2004) (judicial notice of facts from assuredly accurate sources)