Secretary of Labor v. M-Class Mining, LLC, 1f4th16

M‑Class operates an underground coal mine where a miner became dizzy and developed chest pain and breathing problems during roof‑repair work; a physician diagnosed carbon‑monoxide (CO) poisoning and recommended mine shutdown.
Police relayed the physician’s diagnosis to the MSHA hotline, which generated an escalation report. An MSHA inspector issued a §103(k) order suspending operations in the affected area to investigate.
MSHA and company gas‑monitoring data initially showed no elevated CO; the inspector entered the mine about an hour after issuing the order, detected no elevated CO, and modified the order to allow operations to resume; total suspension in the area was roughly 2.5 hours.
The inspector later restricted a diesel air compressor for further investigation; MSHA tested the compressor and other sources over several weeks but found no evidence tying it to the miner’s illness. MSHA ultimately terminated the §103(k) order.
M‑Class contested the order; an ALJ upheld the order as supported by a preponderance of the evidence. The FMSHRC majority vacated the order, concluding substantial evidence did not support that an accident occurred; the Secretary petitioned for review.
The D.C. Circuit dismissed the Secretary’s petition for lack of jurisdiction because the case was moot, declined to reach the merits, vacated the Commission decision and the terminated order, and remanded consistent with precedent.

Issue	M‑Class (Plaintiff) Argument	Secretary (Defendant) Argument	Held
Mootness of challenge to a terminated §103(k) order	Termination does not eliminate real harms (reputational and procedural); case fits "capable of repetition but evading review."	Termination removed any continuing legal consequences; reputational harms are speculative; exception does not apply.	Case is moot; reputational harms speculative; exception does not apply; petition dismissed; Court vacated Commission decision and Order and remanded.
Standard of review for Commission’s decision reviewing MSHA action	Commission should examine whether substantial evidence supports finding of an "accident" and whether MSHA abused discretion in issuing the emergency order.	Legal issues reviewed de novo; factual findings reviewed under substantial‑evidence standard.	Court reaffirmed: legal questions de novo, factual findings reviewed for substantial evidence—but did not resolve merits because case is moot.
Whether the §103(k) Order was properly issued (did an "accident" occur)	MSHA lacked substantial evidence that an accident occurred; the order was erroneous and should be vacated.	The physician’s diagnosis and hotline report justified immediate protective action; MSHA acted within its §103(k) authority.	Court did not decide merits due to mootness (ALJ had upheld; Commission vacated; appellate vacated Commission decision and Order for mootness and remanded).

Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co. v. Fed. Power Comm'n, 606 F.2d 1373 (D.C. Cir. 1979) (vacatur of moot administrative orders is appropriate remedy)
A.L. Mechling Barge Lines, Inc. v. United States, 368 U.S. 324 (1961) (judicial vacatur of administrative orders when case becomes moot)
J.T. v. District of Columbia, 983 F.3d 516 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (standards for mootness and the "capable of repetition but evading review" exception)
Pulphus v. Ayers, 909 F.3d 1148 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (when reputational injury can supply standing or prevent mootness)
Performance Coal Co. v. Fed. Mine Safety & Health Rev. Comm'n, 642 F.3d 234 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (distinguishable precedent involving long‑running/modifiable §103(k) orders)
McBryde v. Comm. to Review Circuit Council Conduct, 264 F.3d 52 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (reputational‑harm standing requires concrete, redressable injury)