Tanner Roth v. Lloyd Austin, III, 62 F.4th 1114

Background

In Aug 2021 the Secretary of Defense and Secretary of the Air Force implemented a COVID-19 vaccination requirement for service members, with administrative procedures for medical, religious, and administrative exemptions.
The Air Force’s religious-exemption process involved a written request, consultations (chaplain, physician, commander), a Religious Resolution Team recommendation, and a senior commander decision; denials could be appealed to the Air Force Surgeon General.
Thirty-six Airmen (active, Reserve, and Guard) sought religious exemptions; Air Force chaplains initially confirmed that receiving the vaccine would substantially burden their sincerely held beliefs; 22 exemptions had been denied at the time of appeal, others were pending.
The Airmen sought a nationwide preliminary injunction in district court to prevent discharges, loss of pay/points, loss of travel/training, demotion, or other penalties for refusing vaccination; the district court denied the injunction.
After the appeal was filed, the Southern District of Ohio certified a class of Air Force members seeking similar relief and enjoined disciplinary actions; the Sixth Circuit affirmed that injunction.
Congress then required rescission of the vaccine mandate in the FY2023 NDAA; the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the Air Force rescinded the mandate and directed removal of adverse actions related to vaccine-denial decisions, eliminating the challenged policy.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the appeal is duplicative because class-wide relief was obtained in Ohio	Airmen argued their district-court injunction denial should proceed despite Ohio class	Government argued the Ohio class judgment grants the same injunctive relief to these Airmen, making this appeal duplicative	Appeal dismissed as duplicative; plaintiffs may not pursue simultaneous federal suits seeking the same injunctive relief
Whether two Airmen fall within the Ohio certified class	Those two Airmen claimed they were excluded because a Religious Resolution Team later found no sincerely held belief	Government pointed to earlier chaplain confirmations and the class definition including chaplain confirmations; Ohio injunction covers denials based on least-restrictive-means findings	Court concluded the Ohio class likely covers them (and that factual disputes should be addressed in Ohio if necessary)
Whether statutory rescission of the mandate moots the appeal	Airmen maintained ongoing harms from denials and sought prospective injunction	Government noted the NDAA required rescission and officials rescinded the mandate, removed adverse actions, and ceased related reviews	Appeal rendered moot by statutory rescission and implementing memoranda; plaintiffs received requested preliminary relief
Whether a mootness exception applies (reasonable likelihood of reenactment)	Plaintiffs implied future reenactment risk or continuing harms might preserve the controversy	Government argued no such certainty; statutory rescission and policy changes remove the injunctive need	No exception applied; not virtually certain the policy will be reenacted—case moot

Key Cases Cited

Doster v. Kendall, 54 F.4th 398 (6th Cir. 2022) (class certification and preliminary injunction barring disciplinary measures for class members who sought religious exemptions)
DeFunis v. Odegaard, 416 U.S. 312 (1974) (per curiam) (statutory or policy changes that eliminate challenged practice typically moot appeals)
Mo. ex rel. Nixon v. Prudential Health Care Plan, Inc., 259 F.3d 949 (8th Cir. 2001) (plaintiffs may not pursue multiple federal suits involving the same controversy simultaneously)
Blakley v. Schlumberger Tech. Corp., 648 F.3d 921 (8th Cir. 2011) (proper remedy for duplicative litigation is dismissal of the duplicative claims or appeal)
Libertarian Party of Ark. v. Martin, 876 F.3d 948 (8th Cir. 2017) (statutory changes that discontinue a challenged practice generally render appeals moot absent a strong likelihood of reenactment)
Moore v. Thurston, 928 F.3d 753 (8th Cir. 2019) (statutory changes generally moot challenges and affect availability of relief)