Religious freedom suit against Maine governor who forced through Covid vax mandate to proceed: federal judge

Judge Jon D Levy of the Maine District Court ruled on August 25 against a motion to stay filed on behalf of Mills and officials within her cabinet, according to Maine Wire.

Mills, as well as Department of Health and Human Services Commissioner Jeanne M Lambrew and Nancy Beardsley of the Maine Center for Disease Control and Prevention, filed the motion to stay the proceedings brought against them.

In Alicia Lowe, et al., v Janet Mills, et all., Maine healthcare workers allege that the state violated their First Amendment rights by refusing to allow a religious exemption to the vaccine mandate, and that healthcare facilities should have offered reasonable accommodations for those who object to the vaccine for religious reasons.

Under Mills’ vaccine mandate, no religious exemptions were allowed, and facilities were unable to offer a testing option for employees.

Several healthcare workers were fired as a result, and have filed the lawsuit against both members of the state government and their employers.

The motion filed by state officials argued that litigation should be stopped since the vaccination requirement is expected to be repealed this month. They said that they would pursue a "move to dismiss this matter on mootness grounds" once the rule is repealed.

The defendants also argued that the mandate hasn’t been enforced against the named healthcare facilities since early July.

The healthcare workers argue that a stay, if granted, could possibly last for an "extended, indeterminate period."

Attorneys for the workers argued that because their First Amendment challenge is "to the overall scheme in Maine that prohibits religious accommodations, as opposed to an individual agency rule," a stay should not be granted.

They argued that if the Mills administration repeals the rule in question, the challenge would fall under "under various exceptions to mootness, including the doctrines of sham repeals to manipulate the Court’s jurisdiction, and the ‘capable of reception yet evading review’ exception."

Levy asserted that his ruling turned "largely on the likelihood of whether the repeal of the healthcare worker vaccination rule will render the Plaintiff’s constitutional challenges moot."

The ruling stated that "an actual controversy must be extant at all stages of the review, not merely at the time the complaint is filed," with Levy noting that the "burden of establishing mootness rests with the party invoking the doctrine."

Levy cited the "voluntary cessation expectation," which states that "a party should not be able to evade judicial review, or to defeat a judgement, by temporarily altering questionable behavior," as a means by which a mootness claim may be nullified.

This exemption can be overcome if a defendant meets the "formidable burden" of demonstrating that it is "absolutely clear the allegedly wrongful behavior could not be reasonably expected to recur."

Levy stated in his ruling that the defendants have not offered "a developed argument, supported by case authority, demonstrating the merit of their mootness argument," and as a result, the healthcare workers did not present "a fully developed argument" in response."

Levy also argued that he is "not in a position" to determine whether the repeal of the rule would "render all of the claims" made moot, and if so, "whether the voluntary cessation exemption or some other exemption to the mootness applies."

Liberty Counsel, the law firm representing the healthcare workers, said in a press release, "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."

The same healthcare workers filed a petition with the Supreme Court earlier this month requesting a writ of certiorari for the Title VII claims made against their employers in this same lawsuit.

The workers alleged that their employers violated Title VII, which protects employees from discrimination.