Whether defendant’s withdrawal of the public-safety advisory at issue mooted plaintiffs’ case; The voluntary cessation & capable of repetition yet evading review exceptions to mootness; Whether the possibility of another administration changing the 2025 position kept the case alive; Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives (ATF)

[This appeal was from the ED-MI.] The court vacated the district court’s judgment, holding that this case was moot. Because defendant-ATF has withdrawn the public-safety advisory that plaintiffs challenged, there is no longer a “live controversy warranting federal judicial intervention[.]” Plaintiffs-Gun Owners and Roberts sued defendants over a 2020 public-safety advisory the ATF issued providing that Michigan concealed-pistol licenses could no longer allow gun purchasers to be exempt from a separate federal background check. Plaintiffs requested an injunction to prohibit enforcement of the advisory and a declaration that the ATF exceeded its authority by issuing it. The district court ruled for the ATF, but the court previously vacated and remanded for additional review of state law requirements. The district court then dismissed Roberts’ complaint for lack of standing. After that ruling, under the new administration, the ATF issued a new advisory providing that Michigan licenses are “an acceptable Brady Act alternative.” On appeal, the court reviewed Article III’s case and controversy requirements, which limit judicial power to “live disputes.” It held that this case was moot where the ATF had withdrawn the 2020 public-safety advisory. Additionally, “[n]either the superseded 2020 advisory nor the outcome of this lawsuit has the potential to affect Roberts. He sought only forward-looking relief—a declaratory judgment and injunction—not money damages to compensate him for past injuries.” Further, neither of the mootness exceptions applied. As to the voluntary cessation exception, the court saw “no basis for thinking the ATF will snap back to the old 2020 policy once freed from this litigation.” It also noted that several other circuits have considered the argument that “a future administration could change course” and rejected it, reasoning that “‘the mere possibility a successor official may shift course does not necessarily keep a case live.’” As to the capable of repetition yet evading review exception, even “if the ATF reissued an advisory substantially similar to the 2020 one, the federal courts would be fully capable of providing effective relief.” And it found that “[i]f the mere possibility that a defendant could again hypothetically restart and then ‘re-cease’ a policy sufficed to prevent mootness, the exception would envelop the rule.” Remanded with instructions to dismiss the case as moot.