Seventh Circuit Opinion — Dismissal as Moot — Klaassen v. Indiana University (N.D. Ind.)

Summary

Document 54 in No. 1:21-cv-00238-DRL-SLC in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, filed February 16, 2022, carries the mandate of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Ryan Klaassen, et al. v. Trustees of Indiana University, No. 21-2326. It contains a Notice of Issuance of Mandate dated February 16, 2022, a per curiam opinion argued January 11, 2022 and decided January 25, 2022, and a Final Judgment. The opinion states that Natalie Sperazza, the sole plaintiff ineligible for a religious exemption, declared no plans to return as a student, and that the appellate brief abandoned the mask-and-test requirement. It rejects the plaintiffs' capable-of-repetition argument. The district court judgment is vacated and the case remanded with instructions to dismiss as moot, and the University recovers costs.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Record facts

Full text

Text recognized from a scanned document; may contain errors.

USDC IN/ND case 1:21-cv-00238-DRL-SLC document 54 filed 02/16/22 pagei1of5

Case: 21-2326 Document: 53 Filed: 02/16/2022 Pages: 1

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT

Everett McKinley Dirksen
United States Courthouse
Room 2722 - 219 S. Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604

Office of the Clerk
Phone: (312) 435-5850
www.ca7.uscourts.gov

NOTICE OF ISSUANCE OF MANDATE
February 16, 2022

To: Gary T. Bell
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Northern District of Indiana
Fort Wayne, IN 46802-0000

RYAN KLAASSEN, et al.,
Plaintiffs - Appellants

No. 21-2326 IV.

TRUSTEES OF INDIANA UNIVERSITY,
Defendant - Appellee

Originating Case Information:

District Court No: 1:21-cv-00238-DRL-SLC
Northern District of Indiana, Fort Wayne Division
District Judge Damon R. Leichty

Herewith is the mandate of this court in this appeal, along with the Bill of Costs, if any. A
certified copy of the opinion/order of the court and judgment, if any, and any direction as to
costs shall constitute the mandate.

RECORD ON APPEAL STATUS: No record to be returned

form name: c7_Mandate (form ID: 135)
USDC IN/ND case 1:21-cv-00238-DRL-SLC document 54 filed 02/16/22 page 2of5

Case: 21-2326 Document: 00713957209 Filed: 02/16/2022 Pages: 3

In the

United States Court of Apneals
For the Seventh Circuit

No. 21-2326

RYAN KLAASSEN, et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,

vz.

TRUSTEES OF INDIANA UNIVERSITY,
Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Indiana, Fort Wayne Division.
No. 1:21-CV-238 DRL — Damon R. Leichty, Judge.

ARGUED JANUARY 11, 2022 — DECIDED JANUARY 25, 2022

Before EASTERBROOK, SCUDDER, and KIRSCH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. Indiana University requires students and fac-
ulty to be vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2, which causes
COVID-19. After the district court denied plaintiffs’ request
for a preliminary injunction, we denied a motion for an in-
junction pending appeal. 7 F.4th 592 (7th Cir. 2021). Our opin-
ion observed that, because seven of the eight plaintiffs qualify
for the University’s exemption for students who represent
that vaccination conflicts with their religious beliefs, standing
USDC IN/ND case 1:21-cv-00238-DRL-SLC document 54 filed 02/16/22 page 3of5

Case: 21-2326 Document: 00713957209 Filed: 02/16/2022 Pages: 3

2 No. 21-2326

depends on the eighth plaintiff, who does not assert that vac-
cination is religiously unacceptable. Id. at 593.

Before the parties filed their appellate briefs on the merits,
the University asked us to dismiss the litigation as moot. The
University told us that Natalie Sperazza, the sole plaintiff in-
eligible for a religious exemption, has withdrawn from the
University. Plaintiffs replied that Sperazza has deferred her
enrollment, not withdrawn, and that she plans to attend if she
can do so without being vaccinated. We accepted that repre-
sentation and denied the University’s motion.

The parties then filed their briefs, which do not shake our
confidence in the correctness of our earlier decision. But be-
fore reaching the merits we must revisit mootness. Because
plans can change, and because the briefs do not discuss the
plaintiffs’ current status, we asked at oral argument whether
Sperazza still intends to attend Indiana University if she can
do so without vaccination. She promptly gave a negative an-
swer. Her declaration says: “I have no plans to return as a stu-
dent at Indiana University.”

At the pre-briefing stage, plaintiffs told us that the suit is
justiciable for two reasons: Sperazza’s status (now altered)
and the fact that all plaintiffs contest the requirement that un-
vaccinated students wear masks and be tested regularly for
COVID-19. Their appellate brief ignores the mask-and-test re-
quirement, however, so that aspect of the suit has been aban-
doned. Plaintiffs’ attempt to revive this subject in a post-argu-
ment memorandum comes too late.

Plaintiffs nonetheless ask us to treat this litigation as justi-
ciable because the subject is capable of repetition but evading
review. That contention is mistaken, for two reasons.
USDC IN/ND case 1:21-cv-00238-DRL-SLC document 54 filed 02/16/22 page 4of5

Case: 21-2326 Document: 00713957209 Filed: 02/16/2022 #Pages:3

No. 21-2326 3

First, the capable-of-repetition doctrine applies only if the
dispute can recur between the same parties. See, e.g., Los An-
geles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 (1983); Weinstein v. Bradford, 423 U.S.
147 (1975). Given the religious exemption enjoyed by seven
plaintiffs, and the withdrawal of the eighth, these plaintiffs
will not be aggrieved by the University’s vaccination require-
ment in the future.

Second, only short-lived disputes evade review. See, e.g.,
Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 481-82 (1990);
Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U.S. 393, 399-400 (1975). This vaccination
policy is not in that category. Indiana University requires
many vaccinations, and none of the litigants suggests that
SARS-CoV-2 is just a temporary addition to the list. College
enrollment usually lasts four years, and some students go on
to graduate education (one of the plaintiffs was a law student
when the suit began). Challenges to other vaccination require-
ments have been resolved by the Supreme Court, see Biden v.
Missouri, No. 21A240 (Jan. 13, 2022); National Federation of In-
dependent Business v. Department of Labor, No. 21A244 (Jan. 13,
2022), even though those requirements were adopted after In-
diana University’s. The problem in obtaining judicial review
does not stem from an evanescent policy, whose application
will be complete before a court can act. The obstacle to reso-
lution of this suit is that the only plaintiff with standing with-
drew from the University.

The judgment of the district court is vacated, and the case
is remanded with instructions to dismiss as moot.

CERTIFIED COPY
USDC IN/ND case 1:21-cv-00238-DRL-SLC document 54 filed 02/16/22 page5of5

Case: 21-2326 Document: 00713957208 Filed: 02/16/2022 Pages: 1

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT

Everett McKinley Dirksen
United States Courthouse
Room 2722 - 219 S. Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604

Office of the Clerk
Phone: (312) 435-5850
www.ca7.uscourts.gov

FINAL JUDGMENT
January 25, 2022

Before
FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge
MICHAEL Y. SCUDDER, Circuit Judge
THOMAS L. KIRSCH IL, Circuit Judge

RYAN KLAASSEN, et al.,
Plaintiffs - Appellants

INo. 21-2326 IV.

TRUSTEES OF INDIANA UNIVERSITY,
Defendant - Appellee

Originating Case Information:

District Court No: 1:21-cv-00238-DRL-SLC
Northern District of Indiana, Fort Wayne Division
District Judge Damon R. Leichty

The judgment of the district court is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED with instructions
to dismiss as moot.

The above is in accordance with the decision of this court entered on this date. The University

recovers costs.

form name: c7_FinalJudgment (form ID: 132) CERTIFIED COPY
& APPE ALS >

Court ei fox: ‘oO

Seventh Circu’


File and source

File

gov.uscourts.innd.107499.54.0.pdf

Size

441,134 bytes

SHA-256

525ea34620cc99a401bef6608729ede5e3f3cee52469a6893ae659e2c66f1f5b

Our copy

gov.uscourts.innd.107499.54.0.pdf

Original

archive.org