Montana Medical Association v. Knudsen

District Court, D. Montana·Decided April 14, 2022·No. 9:21-cv-00108·Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA MISSOULA DIVISION

MONTANA MEDICAL CV 21-108-M—-DWM ASSOCIATION, et al., Plaintiffs, ORDER and MONTANA NURSES ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff-Intervenor, VS. AUSTIN KNUDSEN, et al., Defendants.

Defendants filed a motion for clarification, (Doc. 54), based on the fact that “at least one health care provider in Montana is requiring employees to receive a COVID-19 booster doses by Monday May 1, 2022.” (Doc. 57 at 2.) Defendants therefore sought clarification on the question of whether booster doses of the COVID-19 vaccine could be required under the preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of Montana Code Annotated § 49-2-312 as far as it conflicts with the CMS Rule. (Doc. 55 at 2.) Subsequently, Defendants filed a notice that the health

care provider at issue had rescinded its COVID-19 booster dose policy. (See Docs. 59, 59-1, 59-2.) Defendants’ motion for clarification is therefore moot. “Article III of the Constitution restricts the power of federal court to ‘Cases’ and ‘Controversies.’” Chafin v. Chafin, 568 U.S. 165, 172 (2013); ef Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433, 460 (1939) (opinion of Frankfurter, J.) (explaining that it is improper or the Court

to address “abstract, intellectual problems,” and the judicial power under Article III is properly exercised “only if a concrete, living contest between adversaries call[s] for the arbitrament of law”). Put differently, a case must “embody a genuine, live dispute between adverse parties, thereby preventing the federal courts from issuing advisory opinions.” Carney v. Adams, 141 S. Ct. 493, 498 (2020). In the absence of any COVID-19 booster requirement from health care providers in Montana, there is no concrete, living dispute for the Court to adjudicate. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for clarification, (Doc. 54), is DENIED as MOOT. All associated deadlines and motions are also DENIED. DATED this of April, 2022.

United States District Court

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Montana Medical Association v. Knudsen, (D. Mont. 2022).

Montana Medical Association v. Knudsen (Montana Medical Association v. Knudsen) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Coleman v. Miller
307 U.S. 433 (Supreme Court, 1939)
Chafin v. Chafin
133 S. Ct. 1017 (Supreme Court, 2013)
Carney v. Adams
592 U.S. 53 (Supreme Court, 2020)