The federal appeals court based in Denver dismissed an attempt by two ex-military personnel to halt the U.S. Department of Defense’s COVID-19 vaccination requirement, recognizing on Thursday that the government had already rescinded the mandate and there was nothing for the court to block.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit also noted Dan Robert, who served in the U.S. Army, and Hollie Mulvihill, who was in the U.S. Marine Corps, had both exited the military while the case was pending. 

Robert and Mulvilhill “cannot be subjected to any vaccine requirement associated with service in the military because they no longer serve in the military,” wrote Judge Allison H. Eid in the July 6 opinion.

The plaintiffs claimed the military was violating its own regulations and federal law by requiring COVID-19 vaccination, and asked for a court order declaring the administration of the vaccines illegal.

However, the litigation ran into multiple snags. First, Robert and Mulvihill filed their case before Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin even issued his directive for COVID-19 vaccines. Also, the lawsuit was intended as a class action, but the 10th Circuit judges repeatedly reminded the plaintiffs’ attorney during oral arguments that Robert and Mulvihill remained the only two plaintiffs in the case.

“If you look at the state of our military today, it has been destroyed. The mandate by itself has destroyed readiness,” lawyer Todd S. Callender said in November.

“There is no talking about other people. We’re talking about your two clients. Those are the only people before us,” responded Chief Judge Jerome A. Holmes.

In January, Austin rescinded the COVID-19 vaccination requirement after Congress included a repeal in the 2023 National Defense Authorization Act, which Republicans pushed for. The government argued Robert and Mulvihill’s appeal was moot as a result.

“The relief requested by plaintiffs would have no real-world effect,” wrote the U.S. Attorney’s Office. “Plaintiffs are no longer subject to the military’s COVID-19 vaccination requirement — both because they are no longer in the military and because that requirement has been rescinded.”

Callender responded in the same way he did at oral arguments: by attempting to discredit the vaccines using dubious claims. He referred to “genetic modification” by the mRNA vaccines (they do not alter DNA) and alleged mRNA technology was “never used in humans” prior to COVID-19 (researchers tested a rabies vaccine on humans years before the pandemic).

Ultimately, the 10th Circuit agreed that the plaintiffs’ separation from the military and, alternatively, the repeal of the vaccination requirement made the case moot.

Robert and Mulvihill “cannot be subject to a vaccine requirement that no longer exists,” Eid concluded.

In May, the Military Times reported that more than 8,000 service members were separated from the military due to their refusal to receive the vaccine. At least 98% of active-duty troops have been vaccinated.

The case is Robert et al. v. Austin et al.