Whether the doctrine of mootness applies

QUESTIONS PRESENTED In March of 2020, the spread of a novel coronavirus, which caused COVID-19, circulated amongst the population of the United States, and the world. In an effort to combat the spread of the virus, the Governor of Pennsylvania and the Secretary of Health locked down their citizens and shuttered their businesses. The district court in this case found such measures to be in plain violation of the Constitution of the United States. The merits of the district court opinion never made it before the court of appeals because it found that “circumstances changed.” Pet. App. la (opinion of Shwartz, J.). This case is not moot. Twentyseven (27) days after the court of appeals issued its August 11, 2021 opinion, the Secretary of Health issued an order mandating face masks in schools. As a result, the assault on the Constitutional rights of the citizens of Pennsylvania continues to go unchecked since the district court’s opinion was vacated by the court of appeals citing United States v. Munsingwear, 340 U.S. 36, 3940 (1950). Futher, the court of appeals decision is inconsistent with the holdings of this Court, and other circuits, related to appropriate level of government response to the pandemic. The questions presented are: Whether the doctrine of mootness applies; Whether the “voluntary cessation” exception or “capable of repetition yet evading review” exception to mootness apply; and, whether the court of appeals decision conflicts with this Court’s opinion in Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, 141 8. Ct. 63 (2020) and other circuit courts.