Whether an appeal from the denial of a preliminary injunction becomes moot when the challenged executive order required private employers to enact vaccine mandates for their employees and the executive order rescinding that requirement expressly states that it shall not be construed to require that the mandates enacted pursuant to the original order be dismantled, when the original order to impose the mandates was rescinded with no representation from the government that the mandate will not be reinstated if circumstances revert or change again, and when the plaintiffs were involuntarily terminated from their employment pursuant to the mandates, thus creating an ongoing blemish on their employment records?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether an appeal from the denial of a preliminary injunction becomes moot when the challenged executive order required private employers to enact vaccine mandates for their employees and the executive order rescinding that requirement expressly states that it shall not be construed to require that the mandates enacted pursuant to the original order be dismantled, when the original order to impose the mandates was rescinded with no representation from the government that the mandate will not be reinstated if circumstances revert or change again, and when the plaintiffs were involuntarily terminated from their employment pursuant to the mandates, thus creating an ongoing blemish on their employment records? 2. Whether the proper level of judicial scrutiny for a government order that requires workers to undergo a medical procedure as a condition of continued employment is rational basis or strict scrutiny, and whether it is different for medical procedures categorized as vaccination? 3. Whether Governor Murphy’s Executive Order 283 (the booster mandate) violated the Nurses’ individual substantive due process rights by placing an unconstitutional condition on their continued employment?