Pandemic Darlings The pandemic economy, in original documents
Home Court filings Klaassen v. Trustees of Indiana University Seventh Circuit Opinion — Dismissal as Moot — Klaassen v. Indiana University (N.D. Ind.)

Court filing

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

Filed February 16, 2022 in Klaassen v. Trustees of Indiana University; one of 26 filings from this case.

Record facts

CourtU.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Filed2022-02-16

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · No. 1:21-cv-00238-DRL-SLC · Doc. 54 · 2022-02-16 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

	




		


 !
"#$%!&'()'(!
*''+,-,,.,/0$1%2'$
&)%3'45'!67678

9::':)& 
;)'<=>/,?8>@.@A@7
BBB1%-1(!'(!13'


	
	
C
D2(%/64,7,,
E'<F%E1G
"H5E$EIE$5$E*5&E&9"*E
H')!':5#%%
D'J%45H86A7,.7777
H'1,/.,>,6
*KIHLII$$H4%14
;%::!.IMM%!

1

E*"$E$9D5H5IHI"H5N*$5EK4
:#%.IMM

OPQPRSTPRQ	SUVRWXOYSTPXRZ
!&'(H'</<,/..77,>A.*L.$L&
H')!':5#%%4D'J%!'
![(#3%+'*1L)
\B)!)+%#%':)!'()!%MM%4%'3B))G':&'!!4:%1I
:#'M':)'M']'#':)'(%#^(#3+4:%4%#%#'%!'
'!!!)%'!()+%#%1
*&9*9HI;;IL$EIE"$<
H''#'2(#

:'+%+<_`aCSRbSTV=:'+5<cde?
fghijlmnlolpqrstuivwjxoyz{i|j}l~mp~l}llg€ihjm
USDC IN/ND case 1:21-cv-00238-DRL-SLC   document 54   filed 02/16/22   page 1 of 5

In the 
United States Court of Appeals 
For the Seventh Circuit 
____________________ 
No. 21-2326 
RYAN KLAASSEN, et al., 
Plaintiffs-Appellants, 
v. 
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 
Case: 21-2326      Document: 00713957209            Filed: 02/16/2022      Pages: 3
USDC IN/ND case 1:21-cv-00238-DRL-SLC   document 54   filed 02/16/22   page 2 of 5

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 aaend 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 aaend 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’ aaempt 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. 
Case: 21-2326      Document: 00713957209            Filed: 02/16/2022      Pages: 3
USDC IN/ND case 1:21-cv-00238-DRL-SLC   document 54   filed 02/16/22   page 3 of 5

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. 
Case: 21-2326      Document: 00713957209            Filed: 02/16/2022      Pages: 3
USDC IN/ND case 1:21-cv-00238-DRL-SLC   document 54   filed 02/16/22   page 4 of 5

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 II, Circuit Judge 
No. 21-2326  
RYAN KLAASSEN, et al.,  
                     Plaintiffs - Appellants 
 
v. 
 
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) 
Case: 21-2326      Document: 00713957208            Filed: 02/16/2022      Pages: 1
USDC IN/ND case 1:21-cv-00238-DRL-SLC   document 54   filed 02/16/22   page 5 of 5

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
  1. Final Judgment — Dismissal as Moot — Klaassen v. Indiana University (N.D. Ind.)same docket · 2022-02-22
  2. Report, Doc. 44 — Klaassen v. The Trustees Of Indiana Universitysame docket · 2021-09-28
  3. IU's Response in Opposition to Motion to Stay — Klaassen v. Indiana University (N.D. Ind.)same docket · 2021-09-27
  4. IU's Answer to Verified Complaint — Klaassen v. Indiana University (N.D. Ind.)same docket · 2021-09-27
  5. Plaintiffs' Motion to Stay District Court Proceedings — Klaassen v. Indiana University (N.D. Ind.)same docket · 2021-09-16
  6. Report of Parties’ Planning Meetingsame docket · 2021-09-03
  7. Order Denying Injunction Pending Appeal — Klaassen v. Indiana University (N.D. Ind.)same docket · 2021-07-21
  8. Notice of Appeal — Klaassen v. Indiana University (N.D. Ind.)same docket · 2021-07-20
  9. Seventh Circuit opinion — Klaassen v. Trustees of Indiana University (N.D. Ind.)same case · 2021-08-02
  10. Motion for Injunction Pending Appeal — Klaassen v. Indiana University (N.D. Ind.)same case · 2021-07-20
  11. Opinion & Order Denying Preliminary Injunction — Klaassen v. Indiana Universitysame case · 2021-07-18
  12. Hearing Transcript — Preliminary Injunction — Klaassen v. Indiana University (N.D. Ind.)same case · 2021-07-13
  13. Exhibit — COVID-19 Risk Data for College Students — Klaassen v. Indiana University (N.D. Ind., 2021-07-12, 3)same case · 2021-07-12
  14. Exhibit — IU Restart Committee Recommendations for Fall 2021 — Klaassen v. Indiana University (N.D. Ind., 2021-07-12, 2)same case · 2021-07-12
  15. Exhibit — Plaintiffs' Deposition Testimony Summary — Klaassen v. Indiana University (N.D. Ind., 2021-07-12, 1)same case · 2021-07-12
  16. Deposition of Seth Crowder — Klaassen v. Indiana Universitysame case · 2021-07-12
  17. Court Filing, Doc. 32-9 — Klaassen v. The Trustees Of Indiana Universitysame docket · 2021-07-12
  18. Deposition of Ryan Klaassen — Klaassen v. Indiana Universitysame docket · 2021-07-12
  19. Deposition of Natalie Sperazza — Klaassen v. Indiana Universitysame docket · 2021-07-12
  20. Deposition of Margaret Roth — Klaassen v. Indiana Universitysame docket · 2021-07-12

Part of: Klaassen v. Trustees of Indiana University · U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana · Other pandemic litigation · Suits against governments and agencies · Orders and opinions · 2022 · Court filings

Back to top