Twin Cities Safety, LLC, doing business as HeartCert v. Roger Moe

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-2842
___________________________
Twin Cities Safety, LLC, doing business as HeartCert; Numan Vocational Agency;
Scofield Nursing Assistant Training Center, LLC; Loving Lotus CNA Training
Academy, LLC; CPR Partner, LLC, doing business as CPR Training Center;
Nostalgia School of Health Careers, LLC; Prime Time Medical Training, LLC;
Accelerated School of Nursing Assistant; North American Medical Academy Co.
Plaintiffs - Appellants
v.
Roger Moe, in his official capacity as Chair of the Board of Trustees and Trustee
of the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities, or his successor; George Soule,
in his official capacity as Vice Chairman of the Board of Trustees and Trustee of
the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities, or his successor; Jay Cowles, in his
official capacity as the Treasurer of the Board of Trustees and Trustee of the
Minnesota State Colleges and Universities, or his successor; Dawn Erlandson, in
her official capacity as a Trustee of the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities,
or her successor; April Nishimura, in her official capacity as a Trustee of the
Minnesota State Colleges and Universities, or her successor; Kathy Sheran, in her
official capacity as a Trustee of the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities, or
her successor; Cheryl Tefer, in her official capacity as a Trustee of the Minnesota
State Colleges and Universities, or her successor; Javier Morillo, in his official
capacity as a Trustee of the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities, or his
successor; Christopher Richter, in his official capacity as a Trustee of the
Minnesota State Colleges and Universities, or his successor; Alex Cirillo, in his
official capacity as a Trustee of the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities, or
his successor; Micah Coatie, in his official capacity as a Trustee of the Minnesota
State Colleges and Universities, or his successor; Jim Grabowska, in his official
capacity as a Trustee of the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities, or his
successor; Tim Huebsch, in his official capacity as a Trustee of the Minnesota
State Colleges and Universities, or his successor; Idman Ibahim, in his official
capacity as a Trustee of the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities, or his

-- 1 of 7 --

-2-
successor; Jerry Janezich, in his official capacity as a Trustee of the Minnesota
State Colleges and Universities, or his successor; Dennis Olson, Jr., in his official
capacity as Commissioner of the Minnesota Office of Higher Education, or his
successor; HealthForce Minnesota; Valerie DeFor, in her official capacity as
Executive Director of Minnesota State HealthForce Center of Excellence, or her
successor
Defendants - Appellees
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of Minnesota
____________
Submitted: May 13, 2025
Filed: June 16, 2025
[Published]
____________
Before BENTON, KELLY, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
In 2023, the Minnesota legislature passed an appropriations bill temporarily
funding free training within the Minnesota public school system for would-be
Certified Nursing Assistants (CNAs). Plaintiffs, private providers of CNA training
programs, sought injunctive and declaratory relief, arguing that the law’s
implementation violated the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1. The district court
dismissed, Plaintiffs appealed, and we vacate and remand.

-- 2 of 7 --

-3-
I.
CNAs “perform a variety of important health-care functions in Minnesota
hospitals, long-term care facilities . . . veterans’ homes, and other facilities.”1
Minnesota regulates training and certification for would-be CNAs in accordance
with federal regulatory standards, and Plaintiffs, who run approved CNA-training
courses in the State, charge between $750 and $1,500 per student to complete the
program.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, Minnesota took various measures to address
a shortage of healthcare workers. As one such effort, in 2023, the Minnesota
legislature passed an appropriations bill “that sought to extend to students free CNA
training at the state’s colleges, universities, and high schools through the . . .
Minnesota Board of Trustees.” The law transferred $3,000,000 “to the Board of
Trustees of the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities,” in order to create and
provide “a ‘free up-front’ model for covering the . . . costs” of CNA training for
students. 2023 Minn. Sess. Law Serv. Ch. 41 (H.F. 2073) art. 1, § 2, subd. 42. The
law specified that “[the] appropriation [wa]s available until June 30, 2025.” Id.
Plaintiffs then brought this lawsuit against various Minnesota officials,2
claiming that H.F. 2073 “provides no mechanism or process to include private
entities, such as . . . Plaintiffs, to appropriate moneys to them to provide students
1 The district court treated Defendants’ motion to dismiss as a “facial attack”
on jurisdiction and relied on the allegations in the complaint. See Carlsen v.
GameStop, Inc., 833 F.3d 903, 908 (8th Cir. 2016). We do the same.
2 Plaintiffs named several Minnesota officials as defendants, including: the
Chair, Treasurer, Vice Chairman, and each Trustee of the Minnesota State Colleges
and Universities system; the Commissioner of the Minnesota Office of Higher
Education; and the Executive Director of the Minnesota State HealthForce Center of
Excellence.

-- 3 of 7 --

-4-
with free CNA training and exams.” Plaintiffs alleged that by excluding private
providers of CNA training from H.F. 2073’s funds—and thus causing them to lose
students to state-run competitors who could offer the trainings for free—Defendants
had engaged in anticompetitive conduct in violation of the Sherman Act.3 Plaintiffs
sought declaratory and injunctive relief, asking the court to “bar[] the defendants
from implementing the policy under [H.F. 2073].” Defendants moved to dismiss,
arguing that they were immune from a Sherman Act claim, see N. C. State Bd. of
Dental Exam’rs v. F.T.C., 574 U.S. 494, 503 (2015) (noting “the antitrust laws . . .
confer immunity on anticompetitive conduct by the States when acting in their
sovereign capacity”), and that regardless, Plaintiffs had failed to plead an effect on
interstate commerce sufficient to confer subject matter jurisdiction. After a
preliminary injunction hearing, the district court dismissed the case, agreeing with
Defendants on both issues.
Plaintiffs appealed. In their response brief dated January 27, 2025,4
Defendants argued the case “may in fact . . . be moot” because the Minnesota State
Colleges and Universities website reported that “[a]s funding winds down, seven
final classes are being offered,” the last of which began on January 22, 2025.5
Plaintiffs did not address Defendants’ mootness argument in their reply brief, so we
3 Plaintiffs also alleged equal protection and state-law claims not before us on
appeal.
4 After receiving two extensions, Plaintiffs filed their opening brief on
December 23, 2024. The case was fully briefed by February 19, 2025.
5 See Next Generation Nursing Assistant: Train. Test. Work. CNA Training,
MINN. STATE, https://www.minnstate.edu/employersolutions/training/healthcare
training/cn atraintestwork.html [https://perma.cc/HBP6- KVWX]; see also Search
result for: next generation, MINN. STATE https://mnscu.rschooltoday.com/
public/getclass/sortOrder/ASC/from_search/1/limit/30/public/1/category_id/15/sub
category_id/-1/keyword/next%20generation/ [https://perma.cc/76LJ-G3AY]
(listing January 2025 dates for final CNA trainings available under the program).

-- 4 of 7 --

-5-
directed the parties “to file concurrent letters . . . addressing whether this appeal is
moot.” The parties complied.
II.
Federal courts must “in every case . . . make an independent determination
about [their] own jurisdiction.” Hunter v. Page County, 102 F.4th 853, 863 (8th Cir.
2024). And “[a]t every stage” of litigation, the plaintiff must maintain standing to
sue, with an injury in fact, causality, and “a likelihood that a favorable decision from
the court will redress the injury.” Id. A case becomes moot and the court loses its
jurisdiction when such a “dispute ceases to exist,” as “when plaintiffs no longer have
a ‘personal stake in the outcome.’” Id. (quoting Genesis Healthcare Corp. v.
Symczyk, 569 U.S. 66, 72 (2013)).
Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief “barring the defendants
from implementing [H.F. 2073] to provide free training to students in [CNA] training
programs.” But the free training is no longer being provided. Although H.F. 2073’s
appropriation technically extends until June 30, 2025, in January 2025, the
Minnesota State website claimed that H.F. 2073’s appropriated funds were “winding
down” and being spent on a final set of classes beginning that month. And today, the
website confirms that the “program has come to an end.”6 The case is moot. See In
6 See Thank you for your interest in Nursing Assistant Training, MINN. STATE ,
https://www.minnstate.edu/employersolutions/training/healthcaretraining/cnatraint
estwork.html [https://perma.cc/8UJF-KKNQ]; see also Certified Nursing Assistant
Training, MN. O FF. OF H IGHER E DUC., https://www.ohe.state.mn.us/dPg.cfm?
pageID=2481 [https://perma.cc/J72V-Y7WX] (using same language). Where, as
here, neither party disputes the accuracy of the content on these public websites, we
take judicial notice of them. See Missourians for Fiscal Accountability v. Klahr, 830
F.3d 789, 793 (8th Cir. 2016) (taking judicial notice of government website); see
also Pickett v. Sheridan Health Care Ctr., 664 F.3d 632, 648 (7th Cir. 2011) (noting
courts have “the authority . . . to take judicial notice of government websites,” but
“it is especially important for parties to have the opportunity to be heard prior to”
doing so).

-- 5 of 7 --

-6-
re Gretter Autoland, Inc., 864 F.3d 888, 891 (8th Cir. 2017) (“If nothing of practical
consequence turns on the outcome of an appeal, then the appeal is moot.”).
Resisting this conclusion, Plaintiffs suggest the case falls into the voluntary
cessation exception to mootness, presumably because Minnesota phased out its
spending before the appropriations period ended. True, “a defendant cannot always
moot a case simply by voluntarily ceasing its unlawful conduct after the plaintiff
files suit.” Prowse v. Payne, 984 F.3d 700, 702 (8th Cir. 2021). But Plaintiffs do not
allege that Defendants stopped funding CNA trainings in response to this litigation,
or for any reason other than all of the money had been allocated. And to the extent
Plaintiffs raise concerns about the policy “continuing,” any passage of a new
appropriations bill funding further CNA training programs is outside Defendants’
control, making “the [voluntary cessation] doctrine . . . inapplicable.” Hickman v.
Missouri, 144 F.3d 1141, 1144 (8th Cir. 1998) (noting the voluntary cessation
doctrine does not apply where “resumption of the challenged conduct does not
depend solely on the defendants’ . . . actions” (quoting Allen v. Likins, 517 F.2d
532, 535 (8th Cir. 1975))).
Plaintiffs also fail to show that their harm “is capable of repetition yet evading
review.” Noem v. Haaland, 41 F.4th 1013, 1016 (8th Cir. 2022) (noting “limited
exception” to mootness in circumstances in which there exists “a reasonable
expectation that the same complaining party will be subjected to the same action
again” and where “the challenged action [is] of a duration too short to be fully
litigated before becoming moot” (alteration in original) (quoting Iowa Prot. &
Advoc. Servs. v. Tanager, Inc., 427 F.3d 541, 544 (8th Cir. 2005))). H.F. 2073 was
a time-bound appropriation motivated by the COVID-19 pandemic. The Minnesota
websites provided by the parties do not indicate any planned renewal. Plaintiffs have
not demonstrated a “reasonable expectation” that the challenged policy will recur.
See McCarthy v. Ozark Sch. Dist., 359 F.3d 1029, 1036 (8th Cir. 2004) (quoting
Van Bergen v. Minnesota, 59 F.3d 1541, 1547 (8th Cir. 1995)); see also Whitfield
v. Thurston, 3 F.4th 1045, 1047 (8th Cir. 2021) (noting party invoking exception to
mootness “bears the burden of demonstrating that it applies”).

-- 6 of 7 --

-7-
“When a civil case becomes moot pending appeal, the appellate court
normally vacates the order being appealed and remands to the district court with
instructions to dismiss the case as moot.” Epp v. Kerrey, 964 F.2d 754, 756 (8th Cir.
1992). Accordingly, we vacate and remand for the district court to dismiss this case
as moot.
______________________________

-- 7 of 7 --