Federal Judge Jon D. Levy of the Maine District Court has given the green light to a lawsuit challenging a controversial vaccine mandate issued by Maine Governor Janet Mills.
A group of healthcare workers has taken legal action against the governor and her administration, claiming that their First Amendment rights were breached when they weren’t granted religious exemptions from the COVID vaccination mandate, according to The Post Millennial.
Healthcare facilities, under the directive from Governor Mills, were prohibited from offering religious exemptions and also couldn’t provide a testing alternative for employees.
This has led to the termination of several healthcare professionals, spurring the legal battle against both state officials and healthcare institutions.
The state, represented by Governor Mills, Department of Health and Human Services Commissioner Jeanne M. Lambrew, and Nancy Beardsley of the Maine Center for Disease Control and Prevention, sought to halt the lawsuit’s proceedings.
They posited that the entire litigation should be suspended given the impending repeal of the vaccination requirement.
Their motion suggested that post-repeal, they would “move to dismiss this matter on mootness grounds.”
However, the healthcare workers countered this by highlighting the potential for the stay to persist for an “extended, indeterminate period.”
Their legal representation emphasized that their case is rooted in challenging “the overall scheme in Maine that prohibits religious accommodations,” rather than any specific agency rule.
They suggested that even if the rule were to be revoked, it could still be scrutinized for “sham repeals to manipulate the Court’s jurisdiction,” and would fit under the “capable of reception yet evading review” exception.
Judge Levy, in his decision, stated that “an actual controversy must be extant at all stages of the review, not merely at the time the complaint is filed.”
He underscored that establishing mootness rests on the party putting forth the argument.
He also highlighted the “voluntary cessation expectation,” saying that it provides that “a party should not be able to evade judicial review, or to defeat a judgement, by temporarily altering questionable behavior.”
For a mootness claim to be nullified through this exemption, defendants must prove without a doubt that the questionable behavior will not likely recur.
Levy’s judgment indicated that the state officials hadn’t presented “a developed argument, supported by case authority, demonstrating the merit of their mootness argument.”
Therefore, he could not ascertain if the repeal of the mandate would make the lawsuit’s claims irrelevant, nor could he decide if the “voluntary cessation exemption or some other exemption to the mootness applies.”
Liberty Counsel, representing the aggrieved healthcare workers, released a statement saying, “This court decision is a positive step forward in this case seeking justice for Maine health care workers. Governor Janet Mills is trying to get away with a hit-and-run where she issued this terrible mandate and now wants to escape responsibility for her actions.”
Furthermore, these healthcare workers have approached the Supreme Court, submitting a petition seeking a writ of certiorari for the Title VII claims made against their employers.
They allege that these employers breached Title VII, a law designed to shield employees from discrimination.
