NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 23a0301n.06

No. 22-1257

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

) LIVINGSTON EDUCATIONAL SERVICE ) FILED AGENCY; WAYNE-WESTLAND COMMUNITY ) Jun 29, 2023 SCHOOLS, ) DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk ) Plaintiffs - Appellants, ) ) v. ) ON APPEAL FROM THE XAVIER BECERRA, in his official capacity as ) UNITED STATES DISTRICT Secretary of Health and Human Services; U.S. ) COURT FOR THE EASTERN DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN ) DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SERVICES; JOOYEUN CHANG, in her official ) capacity as Assistant Secretary and Principal Deputy ) ORDER 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. )

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. No. 22-1257, Livingston Educ. Serv. Agency, et al. v. Becerra, et al.

But the vaccine requirement at issue has since been rescinded.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