Sounds Familiar, Don't It.

Now, just as this Court was preparing to act on their applications, the Governor loosened his restrictions, all while continuing to assert the power to tighten them again anytime as conditions warrant. So if we dismissed this case, nothing would prevent the Governor from reinstating the challenged restrictions tomorrow. And by the time a new challenge might work its way to us, he could just change them again. The Governor has fought this case at every step of the way. To turn away religious leaders bringing meritorious claims just because the Governor decided to hit the “off ” switch in the shadow of our review would be, in my view, just another sacrifice of fundamental rights in the name of judicial modesty.

Wait. This sounds familiar. Didn't the City of New York get away with this same sort of thing recently in NYSRPA v. NYC. NYC changed the law and claimed that mooted the issue before the court AND a majority in SCOTUS bit including Roberts our wobbler in chief. Looks like they tried it again in ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF BROOKLYN, NEW YORK v. ANDREW M. CUOMO, GOVERNOR OF NEW YORK but the majority wasn't having any. Amazing how a certain recent appointment to the Court can make such a difference. Vive la différence.