Livingston Educational Service Agency; Wayne-Westland Community Schools v. Xavier Becerra

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION
File Name: 23a0301n.06
No. 22-1257
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
LIVINGSTON EDUCATIONAL SERVICE
AGENCY; WAYNE-WESTLAND COMMUNITY
SCHOOLS,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
XAVIER BECERRA, in his official capacity as
Secretary of Health and Human Services; U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN
SERVICES; JOOYEUN CHANG, in her official
capacity as Assistant Secretary and Principal Deputy
Assistant Secretary of the Administration for Children
and Families; ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN
AND FAMILIES; BERNADINE FUTRELL, in her
official capacity as the Director of the Office of Head
Start,
Defendants - Appellees.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ON APPEAL FROM THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE EASTERN
DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
ORDER
Before: BUSH, LARSEN, and MATHIS, Circuit Judges.
JOHN K. BUSH, Circuit Judge. On November 30, 2021, the Office of Head Start, the
Administration of Children and Families (ACF), and the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS) issued a vaccine requirement covering federal Head Start programs. Vaccine and
Mask Requirements to Mitigate the Spread of COVID-19 in Head Start Programs, 86 Fed. Reg.
68052 (Nov. 30, 2021). Two school districts in Michigan challenge this rule, seeking a preliminary
injunction, a permanent injunction, and declaratory relief.

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 22-1257, Livingston Educ. Serv. Agency, et al. v. Becerra, et al.
2
But the vaccine requirement at issue has since been rescinded. Removal of the Vaccine
Requirements for Head Start Programs, 88 Fed. Reg. 41326 (June 26, 2023). “Under Article III
of the Constitution, our jurisdiction extends only to actual cases and controversies. We have no
power to adjudicate disputes which are moot.” McPherson v. Mich. High Sch. Athletic Ass’n, 119
F.3d 453, 458 (6th Cir. 1997) (quoting Crane v. Ind. High Sch. Athletic Ass’n, 975 F.2d 1315, 1318
(7th Cir. 1992)). A case is moot if the relief sought, if granted, would make no “difference to the
legal interests of the parties.” Id. (quoting Crane, 975 F.2d at 1318). “[W]hen a case at first
presents a question concretely affecting the rights of the parties, but—as a result of events during
the pendency of the litigation—the court’s decision would lack any practical effect, the case is
moot.” Resurrection Sch. v. Hertel, 35 F.4th 524, 528 (6th Cir. 2022) (en banc) (quoting Ohio v.
EPA, 969 F.3d 306, 308 (6th Cir. 2020)).
With the vaccine requirement rescinded, the requested relief would have no bearing on the
plaintiffs’ rights. Nor does any exception to the mootness doctrine apply here. See id. at 528–30.
Therefore, this case is moot.
Under United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36 (1950), because the plaintiffs were
deprived of the opportunity to appeal through no fault of their own, we vacate the district court’s
order and the motions panel opinion and remand with a direction that the district court dismiss the
case. See id. at 39; Resurrection Sch., 35 F.4th at 530; Esshaki v. Whitmer, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS
28565, No. 20-1336, at *3 (6th Cir. 2020).
For the forgoing reasons, we REMAND for proceedings consistent with this order.

-- 2 of 2 --