CEB has published my article, “Criticizing belated policy reversal, 9th Cir. holds fight over LAUSD Covid-19 vaccine mandate is not moot and distinguishes SCOTUS Jacobson ruling.” The article is a cautionary tale about being completely forthcoming at oral argument. And it suggests that theories attempting to distinguish a century-old SCOTUS opinion affirming a state vaccine mandate could be in play.
When the 9th Circuit panel asked counsel at oral argument whether LAUSD was going to reverse its Covid-19 vaccine mandate, counsel did not answer directly. Then walking out of the courthouse, LAUSD’s counsel turned to plaintiff’s counsel and said, “what are you going to do when we rescind the mandate?” And a few days later, it did just that. (”See how easy it is to be a government attorney!”)
That peeved the majority. When LAUSD moved to dismiss the appeal as moot, the panel in Health Freedom Def. Fund v. Carvalho, No. 22-55908 (9th Cir. June 7, 2024) denied the motion, and criticized counsel in the process. Mootness is often in the eye of the beholder, after all, and when it looks like you’re trying to manufacture mootness, count on it not working.
But Judge Collins, dissenting, thought the criticism unfair.