Gretchen Whitmer, Governor, et al. (Respondent) I DO NOT INTEND TO FILE A RESPONSE to the petition for a writ of certiorari unless one is requested by the Court.

Please check one of the following boxes: ✔ □ Please enter my appearance as Counsel of Record for all respondents.

□ There are multiple respondents, and I do not represent all respondents.

Nonetheless, the district court concluded as follows: The Court concludes [Petitioners’] claims and their requested remedies are moot.

The stated purpose of EO 2020-42 was “[t]o suppress the spread of COVID- 19, to prevent the state’s health care system from being overwhelmed, to allow time for the production of critical test kits, ventilators, and personal protective equipment, and to avoid needless deaths[.

However, Whitmer avowed to “evaluate the continuing need for this order prior to its expiration.” Id. Of particular importance, Whitmer would consider “(1) data on COVID-19 infections and the disease’s rate of spread; (2) whether sufficient medical personnel, hospital beds, and ventilators exist to meet anticipated medical need; (3) the availability of personal protective equipment for the health-care workforce; (4) the state’s capacity to test for COVID-19 cases and isolate infected people; and (5) economic conditions in the state.” Id. As residents of Michigan, the plaintiffs found themselves directly within the scope of these provisions; Kimberly Beemer had to cease all recreational travel to her in-state, lake cottage, and Robert Muise could no longer patronize local gun shops and ranges.

Accordingly, the court determined that it could not grant any effectual relief to the plaintiffs, and “there no longer exist[ed] a ‘substantial controversy ... of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment.’” Id. at Page ID#: 1336-37 (emphasis in original) (citing Thompson v. DeWine, 7 F.4th 521, 524 (6th Cir. 2021)).

We further determined, “Any suggestion that the Governor might reenact materially identical orders withers under the light of the Michigan Supreme Court’s ruling that she may not.” Id. We likewise concluded that the declaratory judgment counts were moot without exception.

Plaintiffs alleged that the stipulation remedied the immediate harm but did not resolve the underlying constitutional issues because the voluntary cessation of illegal conduct did not prevent Defendants from reinstituting the same or similar restrictions in the future.

Briefs and Records Supreme Court of the United States United States Courts of Appeals

As required by Supreme Court Rule 33.l(h), I certify that the Petition for Writ of Certiorari contains 5,962 words, excluding the parts of the Petition that are exempted by Supreme Court Rule 33.l(d).

(800) 890.5001 www.beckergallagher.com 8790 Governor's Hill Drive Suite 102 Cincinnati, Ohio 45249 Franklin Square ' 1300 I Street, NW, Suite 400E Washington, DC 20005

State of Ohio County of Hamilton I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Notary Put!1c, State of Ohio My Commission Expires :-·w uarv 14, 2020