1. To obtain injunctive relief against a state governor during the pandemic—and to satisfy the exception to mootness for a controversy "capable of repetition, yet evading review"—does a plaintiff, in all cases, now have to show they are under a "constant threat" of being closed again? Or, while that showing is one "sufficient" way to show a case is not moot, is it not "necessary" in every case?

2. To show that a request for injunctive relief during the pandemic is moot, does a state governor still have a "formidable burden" to make it "absolutely clear" that the claimed wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur?

Whether a plaintiff must show a 'constant threat' of being closed again to obtain injunctive relief against a state governor during the pandemic and satisfy the exception to mootness for a controversy 'capable of repetition, yet evading review