Wendi Thomas v. City of Memphis, Tenn., 996 F.3d 318

Wendi Thomas (MLK50) alleges the City of Memphis removed her personal Gmail address from its Media Advisory List in retaliation for critical coverage of Mayor Strickland and thereafter refused repeated requests to be re-added.
On May 13, 2020 Thomas filed a § 1983 suit seeking injunctive and declaratory relief for alleged First, Fifth, Fourteenth Amendment and Tennessee constitutional violations; she claimed exclusion impaired her news-gathering, including access to COVID-19 virtual press briefings.
Thirteen days after suit was filed, the City adopted PM-62-28: all media advisories would be posted publicly on the City website and designated social media, use of email listservs was barred, and employees recreating a listserv faced discipline, up to termination.
The district court dismissed Thomas’s claims against the City as moot, finding the City had voluntarily ceased the challenged practice and implemented a formal new policy; Thomas appealed.
The Sixth Circuit applied the voluntary-cessation mootness framework (as refined in Speech First) and concluded the City’s policy change was a "legislative-like" regulatory change supported by sworn testimony and formal approvals, and that the City showed no reasonable expectation of recurrence and that effects were eradicated.
Because Thomas sought only prospective injunctive/declaratory relief (not damages) and the City’s policy change was genuine and binding, the Sixth Circuit affirmed dismissal as moot.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the City's voluntary cessation moots the claim because there is no reasonable expectation of recurrence	Thomas: change was "ad hoc," reversible under the Personnel Manual, and likely to be rescinded; sworn statements insufficient	City: policy adopted through formal internal approvals, sworn declaration by Chief Legal Officer, express prohibition on listservs and disciplinary enforcement make recurrence unlikely	The change was "legislative-like," credible, and there is no reasonable expectation of recurrence — favoring mootness
Whether interim relief/events completely and irrevocably eradicated the effects of the alleged violation	Thomas: new policy does not cure past missed opportunities (COVID briefings) and public-interest resolution favors adjudication	City: Plaintiff sought only prospective relief; the new policy eliminated the challenged practice and now governs media access going forward	Effects were eradicated for purposes of prospective relief; claims seeking injunction/declaration are moot

Speech First v. Schlissel, 939 F.3d 756 (6th Cir. 2019) (framework for governmental voluntary cessation and degree of solicitude based on whether change was legislative-like or ad hoc)
Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167 (2000) (defendant asserting mootness by voluntary cessation bears heavy burden)
Hanrahan v. Mohr, 905 F.3d 947 (6th Cir. 2018) (agency-promulgated policy change can moot claim if formally adopted and represented to remain in place)
Brown v. Buhman, 822 F.3d 1151 (10th Cir. 2016) (affidavit under penalty of perjury by government official can support finding of mootness)
Sossamon v. Texas, 560 F.3d 316 (5th Cir. 2009) (affidavit from executive director revising and ceasing a challenged practice can moot claims)
Already, LLC v. Nike, 568 U.S. 85 (2013) (voluntary cessation mootness asks whether allegedly wrongful behavior could reasonably be expected to recur)
City of Mesquite v. Aladdin's Castle, 455 U.S. 283 (1983) (repeal does not moot if there is an announced intent to reenact unconstitutional ordinance)
Int'l Outdoor, Inc. v. City of Troy, 974 F.3d 690 (6th Cir. 2020) (extensive regulatory changes to challenged rules weigh in favor of mootness)
A. Philip Randolph Inst. v. Husted, 838 F.3d 699 (6th Cir. 2016) (frequently amended directives that lack definitive commitment not entitled to mootness)