Rachel Welty v. Bryant Dunaway, 145 F.4th 628

Tennessee enacted the Underage Abortion Trafficking Act in May 2024, criminalizing intentional recruitment, harboring, or transporting of pregnant minors for abortion-related purposes without parental consent.
Rachel Welty (attorney) and Aftyn Behn (social worker and state representative), both abortion-rights advocates, challenged the Act, claiming it violated their free speech and due process rights.
Plaintiffs sought and obtained a preliminary injunction preventing enforcement of the Act's recruitment provision before it went into effect.
Both parties then moved for summary judgment in district court.
On July 18, 2025, the district court granted plaintiffs summary judgment on the free speech claim (and Tennessee on vagueness) and issued a permanent injunction against enforcement of the recruitment provision.
Plaintiffs moved to dismiss Tennessee’s appeal of the preliminary injunction as moot, with both parties concurring.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Mootness of preliminary injunction appeal	Final decision on merits renders appeal moot	Agreed case is moot due to permanent injunction	Appeal dismissed as moot
Constitutionality – Free Speech	Act violates First Amendment rights	Defends Act’s constitutionality	Permanent injunction granted
Constitutionality – Vagueness	Law too vague for due process	Law is not unconstitutionally vague	Judgment for Tennessee
Jurisdictional limits	No longer a live controversy	No objection; agrees it's moot	No jurisdiction remains

Calderon v. Moore, 518 U.S. 149 (intervening final judgment can moot preliminary injunction appeal)
Fialka-Feldman v. Oakland Univ. Bd. of Trs., 639 F.3d 711 (live controversy required at all litigation stages)
Burniac v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 810 F.3d 429 (preliminary injunctions extinguished by final merits decision)
Adams v. Baker, 951 F.3d 428 (no status quo remains after merits resolution for appellate court to maintain)