1) In light of the alleged injuries, requested damages, and established legal principles articulated by this Court, does the denial of standing and the claim of mootness by the Indiana Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court of Indiana remain appropriate in a case involving ADA and Indiana Civil Rights Law violations when the complaint seeks damages, thereby keeping the case live until judicial resolution, settlement, or expiration of statutory hmitations?

2) Would a COVID-19 mask mandate be considered moot, given that Congress recently passed and the President signed HR3935, which prohibits airlines from mandating masks or vaccines for COVID-19? If Congress still regards this as an open issue and courts must fohow Congress' lead, doesn 't this demonstrate that the issue is not moot?

Does denial-of-standing-and-mootness-claim-remain-appropriate-in-ADA-and-Indiana-Civil-Rights-Law-violations-case-seeking-damages