Whether the Supreme Court should vacate and remand the Sixth Circuit's decision as moot after HHS restored Tennessee's funding

In 2023, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services stripped millions of dollars in f unding from the State s of Tennessee and Oklahoma because they refused to counsel or refer for abortions that are illegal under state law. Tennessee sued, alleging that HHS’s funding decision exceeded statutory authority , violate d the Administrative Procedure Act, and flunk ed the Spending Clause clear -statement rule. A district court denied Tennessee’s request for preliminary relief . The Sixth Circuit affirmed . In doing so, the court created a circuit split on what the Spending Clause re quires and drastically narrowed the prospective scope of Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo , 603 U.S. 369 (2024). After the Sixth Circuit’s decision, HHS restored Tennessee’s funding at approximately full amounts and thereby eliminated any live dispute between the parties . The questions presented are: 1. Whether, pursuant to United States v. Munsingwear, Inc. , 340 U.S. 36 (1950), this Court should vacate and remand with instructions to di smiss the appeal as moot . 2. Whether, in the alternative, this Court should vacate and remand for further consideration in light of Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, 145 S. Ct. 2219 ( 2025).