Full opinion text
MEMORANDUM OPINION Denying the Plaintiffs’ Motion to Alter or Amend the Court’s January 10, 2002 Interlocutory Judgment, or, in the Alternative, to Certify Judgment; Denying Plaintiff Chaplaincy Full Gospel Churches’ Motion to Alter or Amend the Court’s August 17, 2000 Interlocutory Judgment, or, in the Alternative, to Certify Judgment; Granting in Part and Denying in Part the Defendants’ Motion for Partial Dismissal. RICARDO M. URBINA, District Judge. L INTRODUCTION This matter is before the court on the plaintiffs’ motion to alter or amend the court’s interlocutory judgment that was issued on January 10, 2002, or, in the alternative, to certify the judgment for appeal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). The court further considers a similar motion filed by one of the plaintiffs, the Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches (“CFGC”), requesting that the court alter or amend its August 17, 2000 decision, or, in the alternative, that it certify judgment. Lastly, the court addresses the defendants’ motion for partial dismissal. For the reasons explained below, the court denies both of the plaintiffs’ motions to alter or amend the court’s previous judgments, as well as the alternative requests for certification under Rule 54(b). Furthermore, the court grants in part and denies in part the defendants’ motion for partial dismissal. II. FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Because the court has published more than a dozen opinions in this case, it will dispense with a full recitation of its lengthy and convoluted background. For ease and readability, however, the court presents here a skeletal description of the plaintiffs’ claims, offering a more comprehensive background throughout its discussion where such information proves necessary. Briefly stated, the plaintiffs claim that the Department of the Navy and several of its officials (collectively, “the defendants”) have discriminated against the plaintiffs on the basis of their religion, by establishing, promoting and maintaining “illegal religious quotas” and religious preferences in their personnel decision-making. Adair v. England, Civ. No. 00-566 (“Adair”), 4th Am. Compl. ¶ 1; Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches v. England, Civ. No. 99-2945 (“CFGC”), 4th Am. Compl. ¶ 1; Gibson v. Dep’t of Navy, Civ. No. 06-1696 (“Gibson”), Am. Compl. ¶ 1. More specifically, the plaintiffs allege that the Navy discriminates against members of “non-liturgical” religions when making decisions for the promotion, accession, retention and separation of Navy chaplains. Adair, Mem. Op. (Jan. 10, 2002), 183 F.Supp.2d at 37-41. Three cases were commenced, all raising “substantially similar constitutional challenges to the Navy Chaplaincy program.” In re Navy Chaplaincy, Miscellaneous No. 07-269, Mem. Order (June 18, 2007) at 3-4. The court ultimately determined that these cases, Adair v. England, CFGC v. England and Gibson v. Dep’t of the Navy, should be consolidated under the caption In re Navy Chaplaincy. See id. at 4. Although their constitutional challenges are nearly identical, the plaintiffs in each case are varied. The Adair plaintiffs are 17 current and former non-liturgical chaplains in the Navy. Adair, Mem. Op. (Jan. 10, 2002), 183 F.Supp.2d at 35. In the CFGC case, the plaintiffs are composed of an endorsing agency for non-liturgical military chaplains called the Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches and seven of its individual members. Id. Lastly, the Gibson plaintiffs consist of 41 individual plaintiffs and one organizational plaintiff, the Associated Gospel Churches, which is “a fellowship of non-denominational, evangelical churches.” Gibson, Am. Compl. ¶ 3. In the latest iteration of this longstanding dispute, the plaintiffs move the court to alter or amend two of its previous judgments. Alternatively, the plaintiffs ask the court to certify these judgments for appeal under Rule 54(b). The defendants, for their part, move the court to partially dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims. With the parties’ respective motions ripe for consideration, the court turns to the parties’ arguments and the applicable legal standards. III. ANALYSIS A. The Court Denies Both of the Plaintiffs’ Rule 54(b) Motions 1. Legal Standard for Altering or Amending an Interlocutory Judgment A district court may revise its own interlocutory decisions “at any time before the entry of judgment adjudicating all the claims and the rights and liabilities of all the parties.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b); see also Childers v. Slater, 197 F.R.D. 185, 190 (D.D.C.2000) (citing the Advisory Committee Notes to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)). The standard for the court’s review of an interlocutory decision differs from the standards applied to final judgments under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(b). Compare Muwekma Tribe v. Babbitt, 133 F.Supp.2d 42, 48 n. 6 (D.D.C.2001) (noting that “motions for [relief upon] reconsideration of interlocutory orders, in contrast to motions for [relief upon] reconsideration of final orders, are within the sound discretion of the trial court”) and United Mine Workers v. Pittston Co., 793 F.Supp. 339, 345 (D.D.C. 1992) (discussing the standard applicable to motions to grant relief upon reconsideration of an interlocutory order) with LaRouche v. Dep’t of Treasury, 112 F.Supp.2d 48, 51-52 (D.D.C.2000) (analyzing the defendant’s motion for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b)) and Harvey v. District of Columbia, 949 F.Supp. 878, 879 (D.D.C.1996) (ruling on the plaintiffs motion to alter or amend judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e)). A motion pursuant to Rule 59(e), to alter or amend a judgment after its entry, is not routinely granted. Harvey, 949 F.Supp. at 879. The primary reasons for altering or amending a judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b) are an intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice. Id.; Firestone v. Firestone, 76 F.3d 1205, 1208 (D.C.Cir.1996) (per curiam); Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b); LaRouche, 112 F.Supp.2d at 51-52. By contrast, relief upon reconsideration of an interlocutory decision pursuant to Rule 54(b) is available “as justice requires.” Childers, 197 F.R.D. at 190. “As justice requires” indicates concrete considerations of whether the court “has patently misunderstood a party, has made a decision outside the adversarial issues presented to the [c]ourt by the parties, has made an error not of reasoning, but of apprehension, or where a controlling or significant change in the law or facts [has occurred] since the submission of the issue to the court.” Cobell v. Norton, 224 F.R.D. 266, 272 (D.D.C.2004) (internal citation omitted). These considerations leave a great deal of room for the court’s discretion and, accordingly, the “as justice requires” standard amounts to determining “whether [relief upon] reconsideration is necessary under the relevant circumstances.” Id. Nonetheless, the court’s discretion under Rule 54(b) is limited by the law of the case doctrine and “subject to the caveat that, where litigants have once battled for the court’s decision, they should neither be required, nor without good reason permitted, to battle for it again.” Singh v. George Washington University, 383 F.Supp.2d 99, 101 (D.D.C.2005) (internal citations omitted). 2. Legal Standard for Rule 54(b) Certification of Final Judgment Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) allows a district court in a case with multiple parties or multiple claims to “direct the entry of a final judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims or parties only upon an express determination that there is no just reason for delay and upon an express direction for the entry of judgment.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b). The purpose of Rule 54(b) is to “mediate[ ] between the sometimes antagonistic goals of avoiding piecemeal appeals and giving parties timely justice.” Taylor v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., 132 F.3d 753, 760 (D.C.Cir.1997). Whether a case is one of the “exceptional cases” qualifying for Rule 54(b) certification is a decision that falls within the discretion of the district court, which is “most likely to be familiar with the case and with any justifiable reasons for delay.” Bldg. Indus. Ass’n of Super. Calif. v. Babbitt, 161 F.3d 740, 743 (D.C.Cir.1998) (quoting Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Mackey, 351 U.S. 427, 437, 76 S.Ct. 895, 100 L.Ed. 1297 (1956)). Under the rule, “the district court [functions] as a dispatcher, determining in its sound discretion when a claim should proceed on to appellate resolution and when it should await its fellows.” Petties v. District of Columbia, 227 F.3d 469, 472 (D.C.Cir.2000) (internal quotations omitted); see also Hill v. Henderson, 195 F.3d 671, 672 (D.C.Cir.1999) (describing Rule 54(b) as an “escape hatch” permitting a partial disposition to become a final judgment). The district court, however, must make certain determinations on the record before the appellate court can acquire jurisdiction. Bldg. Indus. Ass’n, 161 F.3d at 743; see also Haynesworth v. Miller, 820 F.2d 1245, 1253 (D.C.Cir.1987) (noting that a district court’s “[flailure to take the steps specified in Rule 54(b) is more than a mere technicality; without compliance, a federal court of appeals lacks jurisdiction to entertain challenges to the order”). First, the district court must ensure that it is dealing with a final judgment: “final” in the sense that it is “an ultimate disposition of an individual claim entered in the course of a multiple claims action,” and “a ‘judgment’ in the sense that it determines a claim for relief.” Bldg. Indus. Ass’n, 161 F.3d at 744 (quoting Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 446 U.S. 1, 7, 100 S.Ct. 1460, 64 L.Ed.2d 1 (1980)). Second, the court must determine whether there is any just reason for delay, keeping in mind that “[n]ot all final judgments on individual claims should be immediately appealable, even if they are in some sense separable from the remaining unresolved claims.” Id. (quoting Curtiss-Wright Corp., 446 U.S. at 8, 100 S.Ct. 1460). Before “departing from the norm” by certifying a final judgment, the court “must take into account judicial administrative interests,” including “such factors as whether the claims under review were separable from the others remaining to be adjudicated and whether the nature of the claims already determined was such that no appellate court would have to decide the same issues more than once even if there were subsequent appeals.” Id. (emphasis in original) (quoting Curtiss-Wright Corp., 446 U.S. at 8, 100 S.Ct. 1460); see also Hill, 195 F.3d at 672 (noting that when review is deferred, “it is less likely that the appellate court will face overlapping issues and circumstances on two occasions”). The court must also consider the equities involved. Bldg. Indus. Ass’n, 161 F.3d at 744 (citing Curtiss-Wright Corp., 446 U.S. at 8,100 S.Ct. 1460). 3. The Plaintiffs’ Motion to Alter or Amend the Court’s January 10, 2002 Judgment, or, in the Alternative, to Certify Judgment a. The Court’s January 10, 2002 Judgment & Subsequent Related Litigation On January 10, 2002, the court issued a memorandum opinion that granted in part a motion to dismiss that had been previously filed by the defendants. See generally Adair, Mem. Op. (Jan. 10, 2002), 183 F.Supp.2d 31. Of particular relevance here, the court determined that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim with respect to allegations that the defendants had violated the Establishment Clause by allowing chaplains to rate other chaplains and permitting more than one chaplain to sit on a chaplain selection board. Id. at 59-60. Guided by well-settled case law that requires a court to presume that government officials will conduct themselves properly and in good faith, the court refused to assume, despite the plaintiffs’ urging, that “the usual rule for a chaplain sitting on a promotion board will be to discriminate against promotion candidates on the basis of religious denomination.” Id. at 60. The court further rejected the plaintiffs’ contention that “having chaplains rate other chaplains delegates a religious function to the governmental body,” concluding instead that “Navy chaplains are first and foremost Naval officers,” and as such are presumed to undertake the duties of an officer in good faith. Id. The court further agreed with the defendants’ reasoning that it made sense to allow chaplains to rate other chaplains because “the Chaplain Corps fulfills a unique mission within the Navy that requires it to perform duties significantly different from those of Naval line officers and Naval officers in other staff corps.” Id. at 61. Citing these same reasons, the court also dismissed the plaintiffs claim that “having more than one chaplain on a board would provide an opportunity for religious bias because selection boards will inherently discriminate among religious denominations based on their own preferences.” Id. at 61. The court took particular note of the fact that “the plaintiffs never explained] why having one chaplain on a promotion board is constitutional, but having more than one chaplain is unconstitutional.” Id. Immediately after the opinion was issued, the plaintiffs asked the court to reconsider its dismissal of the plaintiffs’ claim that “having chaplains sit on chaplain promotion boards and allowing chaplains to rate other chaplains are practices that violate the First Amendment.” CFGC, Mem. Op. (Aug. 5, 2002), 209 F.R.D. 1, 3. The court subsequently denied that motion, explaining that it had “reviewed the plaintiffs’ allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs and ruled that those allegations failed to state a claim for relief as a matter of law.” Id. at 4. The plaintiffs subsequently moved for entry of final judgment, a request that was also denied by the court. See generally id., Order (May 6, 2004). The court agreed with the plaintiffs that its decision to dismiss the claims concerning the rating of chaplains by other chaplains and sitting on promotion boards was a “final judgment” for purposes of Rule 54(b). Id. at 6. It determined, nevertheless, that the equities of the case did not merit certification, expressing concern that allowing the plaintiffs to appeal the dismissed claims before the resolution of their other claims would result in unnecessary piecemeal litigation. Id. at 7. The plaintiffs have now filed yet another motion requesting that the court alter or amend its January 10, 2002 ruling. See generally Pis.’ 1st Mot. to Alter or Amend. Specifically, the plaintiffs seek relief upon reconsideration of the court’s decision to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims that chaplains should not rate other chaplains and that more than one chaplain should not sit on a promotion board. Id. b. The Court Denies the Plaintiffs’ Motion to Alter or Amend the Court’s January 10, 2002 Judgment, or, in the Alternative, to Certify Judgment In asking the court to reconsider the aforementioned rulings, the plaintiffs argue that evidence revealed during discovery that took place after the court’s 2002 ruling shows that chaplains serve on selection boards as denominational representatives. Pis.’ 2d Mot. for Recons, at 4. The plaintiffs point to military regulations to support their assertions that chaplains are hired to represent their religious organizations and are therefore treated distinctly from other Naval officers. Id. at 15. The plaintiffs maintain that because a chaplain’s “unique” role involves simultaneous service as a denominational representative and a military officer, he or she cannot be expected to “be like all other officers merely because [her or she] walk[s] into a selection board room.” Id. The plaintiffs further assert that discovery produced by defendants since 2006 has demonstrated that “[t]hose denominations whose members appear most often on boards have statistically higher candidate selection rates.” Id. at 18. According to the plaintiffs’ expert, when a candidate for promotion shared a denomination with a board member, there was a statistically significant higher chance that he or she would fare better in the selection process. Id. The plaintiffs thus draw the “inescapable conclusion” that when chaplains make decisions to award or deny government benefits to other chaplains, they “act like denominational representatives and favor those most like themselves,” thereby violating the Establishment Clause. Id. The defendants argue, among other things, that the plaintiffs’ submissions “are duplicative of the allegations in the dismissed claims and therefore immaterial.” Defs.’ Opp’n to Pis.’ Mot. to Alter or Amend at 8. The defendants further contend that the plaintiffs’ evidence does not support that “the law somehow requires [the chaplains to represent their faith group] when serving on promotion boards or in reviewing the performance of other chaplains.” Id. The Circuit has described the role of chaplains within the service as “ ‘unique’ [because it] involve[s] simultaneous service as clergy or a ‘professional representative’ of a particular religious denomination and as a commissioned naval officer.” In re England, 375 F.3d 1169, 1171 (D.C.Cir. 2004). The court wholeheartedly agrees with this assessment, as well as with the plaintiffs’ assertion that “the ehaplains[’] religious identities make them unlike all other naval officers.” Pis.’ 1st Mot. to Alter or Amend the Court’s Jan. 10, 2002 J. (“Pis.’ 1st Mot. to Alter or Amend”) at 15. In fact, the dual role of chaplains as officers and religious representatives was specifically and expressly taken into account by this court in its January 10, 2002 judgment. Adair, Mem. Op. (Jan. 10, 2002), 183 F.Supp.2d at 61 (“Another persuasive reason to allow chaplains to rate other chaplains is that the Chaplain Corps fulfills a unique mission within the Navy that requires it to perform duties significantly different from those of Naval line officers and Naval officers in other staff corps.”). Nevertheless, the court remains unconvinced that simply because a Navy chaplain is forced to wear two “hats” in the course of executing his or her duties, he or she will necessarily engage in biased decision-making when reviewing other chaplains. The plaintiffs do not allege that as a denominational representative chaplains are expected to engage in bigotry or discrimination. See generally Pis.’ 1st Mot. to Alter or Amend. Nor do they argue that “every chaplain serving as a board member allows his denominational background and identity to influence his decision.” Id. at 34 (“The question is not whether every chaplain serving as a board member allows his denominational background and identity to influence his decision, but whether some chaplains, intentionally or unintentionally, allow their denominational background and role as denominational representatives to influence their decisions.”). To successfully state a claim that these challenged policies are facially unconstitutional, the plaintiffs would have to allege that “no set of circumstances exist” under which this policy would be constitutional. United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 745, 107 S.Ct. 2095, 95 L.Ed.2d 697 (1987). They have not alleged this, however. To the contrary, the plaintiffs appear to concede that some chaplains may review other chaplains and sit on promotion boards without allowing their denominational background and identity to influence their decisions. Pis.’ 1st Mot. to Alter or Amend at 34. Moreover, as noted by the defendants, the chaplains are “required by Congress and the Navy to swear that they will carry out their duties on selection boards ‘without prejudice or partiality,’ ” and that their recommendations are in the best interest of the Navy. Defs.’ Opp’n at 13; see also In re England, 375 F.3d 1169, 1173 (D.C.Cir.2004) (“By statute, each member of a selection board must take an oath to perform his duties ‘without prejudice or partiality and having in view both the special fitness of officers and the efficiency of [the Navy].’ ” (quoting 10 U.S.C. § 613)). The court therefore remains persuaded that circumstances exist under which the Navy’s policies for selection boards would be considered constitutional (for instance, when chaplains sitting on selection boards act according to their official directives and not according to personal bias). Accordingly, the plaintiffs have not advanced any evidence or argument that would warrant the alteration or amendment of the court’s 'prior dismissal of the plaintiffs’ claims that the defendants’ policies to have chaplains rate other chaplains or to have more than one chaplain sit on a review board facially violate the Establishment Clause. The court is mindful that the plaintiffs have advanced substantial evidence in support of their arguments that for certain individual chaplains, their role as a denominational representative may, in fact, impact their decision-making process with respect to reviewing other chaplains. See Pis.’ 1st Mot. to Alter or Amend at 31 (noting that expert analysis “clearly shows denomination is an important factor in determining which denominational representatives are awarded or denied government benefits). To be clear, the court’s 2002 dismissal of these two claims does not prevent the plaintiffs from pursuing their other claims that “some board members advance their own denominations in violation of the Establishment and Due Process Clauses,” Adair 4th Am. Compl. ¶ 85, or that the Navy has established “denominational goals” and a “hierarchy of preferred religious traditions” in violation of the First and Fifth Amendments, id. ¶¶ 42-53, 59-71. In other words, to the extent that the plaintiffs raise an “as applied” challenge to the promotion boards and rating processes, the 2002 dismissal does not apply to those claims. See Infra Part III. B.4. Lastly, the court turns to the plaintiffs’ alternate request for certification under Rule 54(b). The parties have previously litigated this precise issue, and the court has already stated its reasons for refusing to certify final judgment for these same claims. See generally Adair, Mem. Op. (May 6, 2004), 221 F.R.D. 255. The court will not needlessly repeat its reasoning here, and, accordingly, denies the plaintiffs’ motion. 4. Plaintiff CFGC’s Motion to Alter or Amend the Court’s August 17, 2000 Judgment, or, in the Alternative, to Certify Judgment a. The Court’s August 17, 2000 Judgment & Subsequent Related Litigation On August 17, 2000, the court granted in part and denied in part a motion to dismiss that had been submitted by the defendants in the CFGC case. See generally CFGC, Mem. Op. (Aug. 17, 2000). In particular, the court determined that the organizational plaintiff, CFGC, (“Plaintiff CFGC”) lacked standing to assert claims on its own behalf, but that it did have standing to raise claims on behalf of its members. Id. at 8-19. Plaintiff CFGC has now filed a motion seeking that the court alter or amend its August 17, 2000 judgment that Plaintiff CFGC does not have standing to bring suit on its own behalf. See generally CFGC’s Mot. to Alter or Amend. In the alternative, Plaintiff CFGC requests that the court certify its judgment under Rule 54(b). Id. b. The Court Denies Plaintiff CFGC’s Motion to Alter or Amend the Court’s August 17, 2000 Judgment, or, in the Alternative, to Certify Judgment Plaintiff CFGC argues that at the time of the court’s 2000 ruling, the court “did not fully understand (1) CFGC’s mission or responsibilities as a [Department of Defense] endorser, (2) CFGC’s actual process of obtaining clergy as chaplain applicants and (3) its continuing responsibility to support its endorsed chaplains once CFGC applicants are appointed as such.” CFGC’s Mot. to Alter or Amend at 5. Plaintiff CFGC advances new evidence of the defendant’s alleged religious discrimination and argues that the defendant’s discriminatory acts have frustrated Plaintiff CFGC’s ability to meet its “mission to recruit charismatic clergy for the Navy Chaplain Corps and has caused [] ‘concrete and demonstrable injury to the organization’s activities- — with the consequent drain on the organization’s resource,’ proving standing.” Id. at 31-32. The defendants assert that relief under Rule 54(b) would be improper because “nothing [Plaintiff CFGC] now argue[s] is substantively different than the arguments rejected by the Court in August 2000.” Defs.’ Opp’n to CFGC’s Mot. to Alter or Amend at 5. The court’s August 17, 2000 memorandum opinion clearly acknowledged that the purpose of CFGC was to “find[ ] and endorse!] [non-liturgical protestant] clergy to meet the Department of Defense standards for commission as a chaplain in the armed forces.” CFGC, Mem. Op. (Aug. 17, 2000) at 4. The court also recognized that once a candidate enters the Corps, Plaintiff CFGC continued to “provid[e them with] spiritual and professional guidance,” and that the organization had “begun monitoring promotions and providing [its endorsed chaplains with] transition assistance to the civilian sector.” Id. Further, the court’s 2000 opinion noted that Plaintiff CFGC spent approximately $700 in the endorsement of each candidate, and that, in turn, each endorsed chaplain provided Plaintiff CFGC with a monthly payment, which generated the main source of income for the organization. Id. at 3-4. The court also credited that Plaintiff CFGC had stopped its candidate endorsements to the Navy Chaplaincy Corps due to the difficulty that it had experienced in recruiting non-liturgical protestant chaplains for the Navy. Id. Additionally, for purposes of ruling on the motion to dismiss, the court accepted as true all of the plaintiffs’ allegations, including allegations that the defendants’ discriminatory actions had caused Plaintiff CFGC harm. Id. at 2. Thus, it appears that contrary to Plaintiff CFGC’s assertions, the court thoroughly understood Plaintiff CFGC’s mission as an endorser, as well as the recruiting process, the continuing responsibility by Plaintiff CFGC to support endorsed chaplains once appointed and the financial effects that the defendants’ alleged acts were having on Plaintiff CFGC. See CFGC, Mem. Op. (Aug. 17, 2000) at 2-4. In addition to understanding these vital facts, the court correctly referred to Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363, 102 S.Ct. 1114, 71 L.Ed.2d 214 (1982) as the controlling precedent to determine whether an organization has standing to bring a claim on its own behalf. Id. at 10. Indeed, Plaintiff CFGC agrees that Havens provides the correct applicable legal standard. Pis.’ Mot. to Alter or Amend at 10. Under Havens, the court then accurately noted that an organization may have standing to bring suit on its own behalf if the alleged actions by the defendant caused it an injury in fact. CFGC, Mem. Op. (Aug. 17, 2000) at 8-9. Guided by a firm understanding of the applicable law and the relevant facts, the court in its August 17, 2000 ruling concluded that Plaintiff CFGC had “not alleged sufficient programmatic injuries that go to the heart of its organizational purposes,” because it was “not in the business of lobbying the [Department of Defense] or ensuring equal protection for all [non-liturgical protestant] clergy within the armed forces.” Id. The court rejected the arguments by Plaintiff CFGC that it had directed considerable resources to minimize the effect of the defendants’ alleged discrimination, noting that Plaintiff CFGC’s “primary function is limited to sponsorship of clergy” and not to providing such assistance to the chaplains. Id. at 10. Ultimately, the court concluded that because “the Defendants’ alleged activity ... [was] not at ‘loggerheads’ with [Plaintiff CFGC’s] mission and does not constitute injury in fact,” Plaintiff CFGC did not have standing to bring this suit in its own right. Id. As noted above, Rule 54(b) motions are not simply an opportunity to reargue facts and theories upon which a court has already ruled. Black v. Tomlinson, 235 F.R.D. 532, 533 (D.D.C.2006). Plaintiff CFGC’s motion nevertheless appears to do precisely that. Pis.’ Mot. to Alter or Amend at 10. The value of Plaintiff CFGC’s purported “new evidence” would merely be to establish the truthfulness of the allegations of discrimination, allegations that the court, in its August 17, 2000 ruling, would have assumed as true prior to dismissing the claims at issue. See CFGC, Mem. Op. (Aug. 17, 2000) at 2 (accepting as true all of the plaintiffs’ allegations). Accordingly, the court declines to alter or amend its judgment. The court now turns to Plaintiff CFGC’s alternative request for certification of the court’s 2000 ruling as final judgment under Rule 54(b). Plaintiff CFGC argues that certification is appropriate because the court’s August 17, 2000 ruling “is a final judgment on less than all of the plaintiff’s claims, is separable from the remaining claims and there is no just reason for delay-in bringing its review before the Court of Appeals.” CFGC’s Mot. to Alter or Amend at 39. The defendants contend that “neither the equities of this case nor the interests of judicial administration favor Plaintiffs’ request for entry of a final judgment.” Defs.’ Opp’n to CFGC’s Mot. to Alter or Amend at 14. More specifically, the defendants argue that “there is no harm to Plaintiffs if entry of a final judgment as to the question of CFGC’s direct organizational standing is deferred until all of the claims are decided,” because “CFGC is still a Plaintiff in its representative capacity, and may still participate in the litigation to the extent that the chaplains it represents also possess Article III standing.” Id. at 14. In determining whether to certify this issue as a final judgment under Rule 54(b), the court considers whether, after taking into account judicial administrative interests and the equities involved, certification is appropriate. Bldg. Indus. Ass’n, 161 F.3d at 744. Here, the court is not persuaded that either judicial interests or equities weigh in favor of certification. Plaintiff CFGC acknowledges that, notwithstanding the court’s August 17, 2000 opinion, it maintains organizational standing as a representative, and, at this point, there is no reason to question whether Plaintiff CFGC can pursue all of its claims by nature of its representative standing. Thus, this case may properly advance with Plaintiff CFGC as a litigant, and any issues of direct organizational standing, to the extent that they are still relevant, may be addressed alongside other claims in any appeal that may result. Accordingly, because the case is not an “exceptional case” meriting Rule 54(b) certification, and for reasons of judicial economy and equities, the court determines that the plaintiffs are not entitled to Rule 54(b) certification. Bldg. Indus. Ass’n, 161 F.3d at 743. B. The Court Grants in Part and Denies in Part the Defendants’ Motion for Partial Dismissal 1. Legal Standard for Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and the law presumes that “a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S.Ct. 1673, 128 L.Ed.2d 391 (1994); see also Gen. Motors Corp. v. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 363 F.3d 442, 448 (D.C.Cir.2004) (noting that “[a]s a court of limited jurisdiction, we begin, and end, with an examination of our jurisdiction”). Because “subject-matter jurisdiction is an ‘Article] III as well as a statutory requirement^] no action of the parties can confer subject-matter jurisdiction upon a federal court.’ ” Akinseye v. District of Columbia, 339 F.3d 970, 971 (D.C.Cir. 2003) (quoting Ins. Corp. of Ir., Ltd. v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinnee, 456 U.S. 694, 702, 102 S.Ct. 2099, 72 L.Ed.2d 492 (1982)). On a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the court has subject matter jurisdiction. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992). Because subject matter jurisdiction focuses on the court’s power to hear the claim, however, the court must give the plaintiffs factual allegations closer scrutiny when resolving a Rule 12(b)(1) motion than would be required for a Rule 12(b)(6) motion for failure to state a claim. See Macharia v. United States, 334 F.3d 61, 64, 69 (D.C.Cir.2003); Grand Lodge of Fraternal Order of Police v. Ashcroft, 185 F.Supp.2d 9, 13 (D.D.C.2001). Thus, the court is not limited to the allegations contained in the complaint. Hohri v. United States, 782 F.2d 227, 241 (D.C.Cir.1986), vacated on other grounds, 482 U.S. 64, 107 S.Ct. 2246, 96 L.Ed.2d 51 (1987). Instead, “where necessary, the court may consider the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts evidenced in the record, or the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts plus the court’s resolution of disputed facts.” Herbert v. Nat’l Acad. of Scis., 974 F.2d 192, 197 (D.C.Cir.1992) (citing Williamson v. Tucker, 645 F.2d 404, 413 (5th Cir.1981)). 2. Legal Standard for Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss A Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss tests the legal sufficiency of a complaint. Browning v. Clinton, 292 F.3d 235, 242 (D.C.Cir.2002). The complaint need only set forth a short and plain statement of the claim, giving the defendant fair notice of the claim and the grounds upon which it rests. Kingman Park Civic Ass’n v. Williams, 348 F.3d 1033, 1040 (D.C.Cir. 2003) (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2) and Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957)). “Such simplified notice pleading is made possible by the liberal opportunity for discovery and the other pretrial procedures established by the Rules to disclose more precisely the basis of both claim and defense to define more narrowly the disputed facts and issues.” Conley, 355 U.S. at 47-48, 78 S.Ct. 99 (internal quotation marks omitted). It is not necessary for the plaintiff to plead all elements of his prima facie case in the complaint, Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 511-14, 122 S.Ct. 992, 152 L.Ed.2d 1 (2002), or “plead law or match facts to every element of a legal theory,” Krieger v. Fadely, 211 F.3d 134, 136 (D.C.Cir.2000) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Yet, “[t]o survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 562, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) (abrogating the oft-quoted language from Conley, 355 U.S. at 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, instructing courts not to dismiss for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that “no set of facts in support of his claim [ ] would entitle him to relief’). A claim is facially plausible when the pleaded factual content “allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556, 127 S.Ct. 1955). “The plausibility standard is not akin to a ‘probability requirement,’ but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556, 127 S.Ct. 1955). In resolving a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the court must treat the complaint’s factual allegations — including mixed questions of law and fact — as true and draw all reasonable inferences therefrom in the plaintiffs favor. Holy Land Found. for Relief & Dev. v. Ashcroft, 333 F.3d 156, 165 (D.C.Cir.2003); Browning, 292 F.3d at 242. While many well-pleaded complaints are conclusory, the court need not accept as true inferences unsupported by facts set out in the complaint or legal conclusions cast as factual allegations. Warren v. District of Columbia, 353 F.3d 36, 39 (D.C.Cir.2004); Browning, 292 F.3d at 242. “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955). 3. The Court Denies the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Gibson Plaintiffs’ Promotion and Selective Early Retirement Claims Due to Their Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies a. The Gibson Plaintiffs’ Claims Challenging the Defendants’ Promotion and Selective Early Retirement Systems The defendants move to dismiss the Gibson plaintiffs’ “counts 1, 2, [and] 3 in their entirety and parts of Gibson counts 11 and 13.” Defs.’ Mot. for Partial Dismissal at 9. Generally, as the defendants describe, these counts all raise challenges to the Navy’s “personnel management systems,” the decision-making systems that control the promotions, accession, retention and selective early retirement of chaplains. Id. As elaborated upon further below, the Gibson plaintiffs specifically challenge the policies and practices that the Navy relies on to periodically review chaplains for promotion and selective early retirement (“promotion boards” and “selective early retirement boards”). In count one of their complaint, the Gibson plaintiffs allege that “the Navy’s arbitrary ... goals and/or quotas established and maintained unconstitutional religious preference systems.” Gibson, Am. Compl. ¶ 30. According to these plaintiffs, the Navy Chaplain Corps has rejected otherwise qualified non-liturgical chaplain candidates because of its “bias against their faith group’s beliefs, traditions and worship practices.” Id. ¶36. Specifically, the Gibson plaintiffs allege that the Navy Chaplain Corps has used a quota system, or a “Thirds Policy,” to discriminate against non-liturgical chaplains who seek to join or to be promoted within the Corps. See id. ¶¶ 3(M2. They allege that “[b]y policy and practice, [the Navy Chaplain Corps] has established a favored set of denominations for use on selection boards which distribute government benefits,” and, conversely, that due to such a policy of denominational preference, non-liturgical members were not allowed to participate in promotion board memberships at the same rate that other denominational members were allowed. Id. ¶¶ 38-39. Similarly, the Gibson plaintiffs argue that “statistical analysis shows [that] the Navy had a favorite set of denominations it routinely used for chaplain selection boards,” and that such favoritism impacted the retention rate of non-liturgical chaplains. Id. ¶¶ 40-41. Similarly, under count two, the Gibson plaintiffs reassert that “the Navy has established a hierarchy of preferred religious traditions.” Id. ¶ 43. Again, they restate that “this preference priority forms the basis for populating the selection boards,” which “in turn controls the mix of denominations which are selected into, promoted within, or involuntarily retired from the U.S. Navy Chaplain Corps.” Id. ¶46. They specifically allege that “[t]he Navy has used the [Selective Early Retirement] process to reduce the number of higher ranking Non-liturgieal chaplains” and to ensure “domination of the [Navy Chaplain Corps] by the liturgical tradition.” Id. ¶ 54. In count three, the Gibson plaintiffs charge that “[t]he Navy’s chaplain selection board system and its procedures are unconstitutional” because they provide “an unchallenged opportunity for religious bias or denominational issues to interfere with selecting the best qualified chaplains for promotion.” Id. ¶¶ 57, 70. The Gibson plaintiffs allege that these unlawful selection policies are also used to determine the composition and the decision-making process of the selective early retirement boards and promotion boards, thus violating the First and Fifth Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Id. ¶¶ 73-77. Count eleven alleges that “senior chaplains and other Navy officials have concealed and denied evidence of prejudice and bias in the selection process, including the Navy’s faith group quotas.” Id. ¶ 132. In so doing, the Gibson plaintiffs claim that officials in the Navy Chaplain Corps have breached their duty “to report wrongdoing” and “to reveal the true nature of and prejudice in the Navy’s promotion and other career-related systems to plaintiffs and all other class members who have raised questions about the fairness and equity of the promotion process.” Id. Finally, in count thirteen, the Gibson plaintiffs allege that the Navy Chaplaincy Corps violated the First Amendment by engaging in a “recruiting policy requiring all chaplains to assist in recruiting chaplains.” Id. ¶ 140. According to the Gibson plaintiffs, the Navy’s policy for recruiting chaplains required current chaplains “to furnish names of prospective seminary graduates and other clergy to the [Corps] for recruiting purposes, and [to] speak positively of the Corps.” Id. ¶ 145. b. The Parties’ Arguments The defendants argue that the court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate the Gibson plaintiffs’ allegations that relate to the Navy’s promotion and selective early retirement processes because the Gibson plaintiffs have failed to timely exhaust their administrative remedies by not first obtaining the review of a “special selection board” or “special board,” as is required by law. Defs.’ Partial Mot. to Dismiss at 11. The defendants thus urge the court to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction “each of the Mounts asserted by the Gibson [p]laintiffs insofar as it concerns promotion and selective early retirement board decisions.” Id. The Gibson plaintiffs contend that they were “not required to exhaust their administrative remedies before challenging [the defendant's promotion and [selective early retirement] processes.” Gibson Pis.’ Opp’n to Defs.’ Partial Mot. at 4. Among other arguments, the Gibson plaintiffs declare that a statutory exception to the jurisdiction-stripping provision applies to their claims. Id. In their reply, the defendants acknowledge that there is a statutory exception to the jurisdiction-stripping provision for challenges to “the validity of a law, regulation, or policy relating to selection boards,” but they maintain that the exception does not apply because the Gibson plaintiffs are challenging the outcome of the “individual selection board proceedings.” Id. c. Legal Framework: 10 U.S.C. § 1558(f) and § 628(h) In 2001, Congress enacted legislation that limits a court’s jurisdiction over those actions filed on or after December 28, 2001 that seek judicial review of a decision or recommendation by certain military boards. See 10 U.S.C. §§ 1558(f), 628(h). More specifically, the relevant provisions require that a person seeking judicial review of a decision made by a “selection board” or a “promotion board” must first exhaust his or her administrative remedies by resorting to a “special board” or a “special selection board,” respectively. See 10 U.S.C. §§ 1558(f), 628(h). Under 10 U.S.C. § 1558(f)(1), a provision titled “Judicial Review,” [a] person seeking to challenge an action or recommendation of a selection board, or an action taken by the Secretary of the military department concerned on the report of a selection board, is not entitled to relief in any judicial proceeding unless the action or recommendation has first been considered by a special board under this section or the Secretary concerned has denied the convening of such a board for such consideration. Id. § 1558(f)(1) (emphasis added). Similarly, 10 U.S.C. § 628(h), entitled “[ljimitations of other jurisdiction,” forbids any “court of the United States” from considering “a claim based to any extent on the failure of a person to be selected for promotion by a promotion board,” unless “the person has first been referred by the Secretary concerned to a special selection board convened under [10 U.S.C. § 628] and acted upon by that board and the report of the board has been approved by the President.” Id. § 628(h)(1) (emphasis added). The plain language of these statutes indicates that a district court may review the special selection board’s or a promotion board’s decisions only after a special board (for challenges to a special selection board’s decision) or a special selection board (for challenges to a promotion board’s decision) first considers a plaintiffs claim. 10 U.S.C. §§ 1558(f), 628(h); see also Blackmon-Malloy v. United States Capitol Police Bd., 575 F.3d 699, 704 (D.C.Cir.2009) (observing that determining whether a statute’s exhaustion requirements are jurisdictional “is a question of statutory interpretation”); Bd. of Governors of the Fed. Reserve Sys. v. MCorp Fin. Inc., 502 U.S. 32, 44, 112 S.Ct. 459, 116 L.Ed.2d 358 (1991) (determining that the district court lacked jurisdiction because the relevant statute had “provide[d the Court] with clear and convincing evidence that Congress intended to deny the District Court jurisdiction” to review the case); Randolph-Sheppard Vendors of Am. v. Weinberger, 795 F.2d 90, 101-103 (D.C.Cir.1986) (noting that “the inclusion of a detailed grievance procedure to resolve [ ] disputes ... was the strongest evidence of Congressional intent” that a party must exhaust administrative remedies before resorting to the federal courts). Thus, a court lacks jurisdiction to review decisions by the promotion boards and special selection boards if a plaintiff fails to exhaust his or her administrative remedies under § 1558 and § 628. See Nat’l Coal. to Save Our Mall v. Norton, 269 F.3d 1092, 1095 (D.C.Cir.2001) (determining that Congress’s “unequivocal intent to cut off judicial review” for a specific type of claim meant that the court lacked jurisdiction over that claim); Cotrich v. Nicholson, 2006 WL 3842112, at *2 (M.D.Fla. Dec. 19, 2006) (dismissing the case, inter alia, for lack of jurisdiction due to the plaintiffs failure to exhaust the administrative procedures in § 1558). There is, however, one critical exception. Under § 1558 and § 628, “nothing” limits “the jurisdiction of any court of the United States under any provision of law to determine the validity of any law, regulation, or policy relating to selection boards.” 10 U.S.C. §§ 1558(g), 628(i). Stated otherwise, under § 1558(g) and § 628(i), a court retains jurisdiction to review the actions by a selection or promotion board so long as the claim seeks judicial review of the “validity of any law, regulation, or policy relating to selection boards.” 10 U.S.C. §§ 1558(g), 628®. d. The Court Retains Jurisdiction Notwithstanding the Exhaustion Requirements of 10 U.S.C. § 1558 and § 628 To determine whether the Gibson plaintiffs’ claims fall within the exception to the jurisdiction-stripping provisions delineated above, the court must consider whether the Gibson claims require the court to determine “the validity of any law, regulation, or policy relating to selection boards.” 10 U.S.C. §§ 1558(g), 628(i). In doing so, the court limits its inquiry to those claims that the defendants specifically contend should be dismissed pursuant to the exhaustion jurisdictional requirements: counts one, two, three, eleven and thirteen of the Gibson plaintiffs’ complaint. Defs.’ Mot. for Partial Dismissal at 9-10. Under § 1558 and § 628, the court may only exercise jurisdiction over those claims that challenge the validity of any law, regulation, or policy that “relat[es] to selection boards” or, in other words, those claims that challenge a law, regulation or policy that has a connection or relationship to selection boards. See Merriam-Webster Dictionary, http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/relate (last visited Nov. 30, 2011); see also Engine Mfrs. Ass’n. v. S. Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist., 541 U.S. 246, 252, 124 S.Ct. 1756, 158 L.Ed.2d 529 (2004) (“Statutory construction must begin with the language employed by Congress and the assumption that the ordinary meaning of that language accurately expresses the legislative purpose” (internal quotation marks omitted)). The term “selection boards,” in turn, refers to boards that are convened by the Navy for the purpose of, among other things, recommending persons for promotion and retirement. See 10 U.S.C. § 1558(b)(2)(A) (defining “selection board”). In reviewing counts one, two and three of the Gibson complaint, it is clear that resolving these claims would require the court to opine on the validity of policies relating to selection boards. See 10 U.S.C. § 1558(g), 628(i). In these counts, the Gibson plaintiffs specifically challenge the policies used by the Navy to determine the composition and guide the decision-making of both the promotion and the selective early retirement boards. See supra Part III.B.3.a (describing the claims in further detail). Because counts one, two and three assert challenges to the validity of policies relating to selection boards, the court concludes that it maintains jurisdiction to review these claims pursuant to the statutory exceptions of § 628(i) and § 1558(g). With respect to counts eleven and thirteen, the court notes that the jurisdictional strictures of § 1558(f) and § 628(h) apply to claims in which the plaintiffs are asking the court to review discrete personnel actions by a selection board or a promotion board. See 10 U.S.C §§ 1558(f), 628(h). Counts eleven and thirteen do not, however, challenge specific personnel actions of a promotion board or selection board. Gibson Am. Compl. ¶¶ 132, 140. Instead, those claims allege that the Navy has concealed evidence of prejudice and has illegally required chaplains to assist in recruitment efforts. Because the court is not persuaded that these claims fall under the jurisdictional strictures of § 628(h) and § 1558(f), the court concludes that its jurisdiction to entertain those claims is not limited by the statutory exhaustion requirements set forth in § 628(g) and § 1558(f). Accordingly, the court denies the defendants’ motion for partial dismissal insofar as it contends that the plaintiffs failed to exhaust their administrative remedies. See 10 U.S.C. §§ 1558(g), 628(i). 4. The Court Grants in Part and Denies in Part the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiffs’ Claims Regarding the Composition of the Promotion and Selective Early Retirement Selection Boards The defendants argue that the court should dismiss those claims by the plaintiffs that “challeng[e] the composition of the Navy Chaplain Corps selection boards.” Defs.’ Mot. for Partial Dismissal at 12-13. According to the defendants, the plaintiffs claim “that a Chaplain Corps policy of assigning chaplains from a variety of faith group categories to serve on promotion and selective early retirement boards represents something of a per se constitutional violation.” Id. at 13. The defendants maintain that “the [cjourt has already rejected th[ese] very claim[s] pursuant to [Rule] 12(b)(6)” in its previous January 10, 2002 memorandum opinion and “should do so again in these consolidated cases.” Id. at 13, 16; see also Adair, Mem. Op. (Jan. 10, 2002), 183 F.Supp.2d at 59-60. The plaintiffs contend that in arguing that the court has already ruled on their claims regarding the composition of the selection boards, the defendants erroneously lump together several of the plaintiffs’ claims regarding the composition of selection boards. Pis.’ Opp’n to Defs.’ Mot. for Partial Dismissal at 16. The plaintiffs acknowledge that the court previously rejected the claim made by the Adair and CFGC plaintiffs that “having more than one chaplain on a board was unconstitutional.” Id. Nevertheless, they assert that the court has not addressed their claims that the voting procedures of board members, as applied, result in unconstitutional acts of religious discrimination. Id. at 17 (arguing that the voting procedures mixed with the small size of the selection board result in an abuse of power “for personal, vindictive and ideological purposes”). Nor, they argue, has the court addressed their claims that the defendants “used a denominational hierarchy in [the] selection [of] chaplain board members.” Id. at 19. As discussed earlier, the court determined in its January 10, 2002 ruling that the plaintiffs’ facial challenges to the policies of the selection boards were insufficient to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). See supra Part III.B.3; Adair, Mem. Op. (Jan. 10, 2002), 183 F.Supp.2d at 59-61. For the reasons asserted in that ruling and reiterated above, the court dismissed the facial challenges to the defendants’ selection board policies. See supra Part' III. B.3. To the extent that the plaintiffs again seek to reassert a facial challenge to the defendants’ policies that allow chaplains to sit on selection boards, the court dismisses it for the reasons already pronounced. See Adair, Mem. Op. (Jan. 10, 2002), 183 F.Supp.2d at 59-61. The court agrees with the plaintiffs, however, that the defendants have cast too wide of a net when discussing the types of claims that are properly considered dismissed under the court’s January 10, 2002 ruling. As the court clarified above, its January 10, 2002 ruling did not dismiss the plaintiffs’ as applied claims. See supra Part III.A.3. Therefore, insofar as the plaintiffs allege in their complaints that the selection boards’ voting procedures and the “denominational hierarchy” employed in selecting board members have, in fact, resulted in religious discrimination, see Pis.’ Opp’n to Defs.’ Partial Mot. to Dismiss at 17-19, the court declines to dismiss these claims at this time. Because the legal viability of such as applied claims was not raised in the government’s motion for partial dismissal, the court reserves any judgment as to that issue. Accordingly, the court grants in part and denies in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims regarding the composition of the promotion and selective early retirement boards. 5. The Court Denies the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, Insofar as They Seek Dismissal Based on Mootness Grounds a. Legal Standard for Mootness Under Rule 12(b)(1), a party may move to dismiss a case on grounds of mootness. Comm, in Solidarity with People of El Salvador v. Sessions, 929 F.2d 742, 744 (D.C.Cir.1991); Super Sack Mfg. Corp. v. Chase Packaging Corp., 57 F.3d 1054, 1060 (Fed.Cir.1995); Am. Historical Ass’n v. Peterson, 876 F.Supp. 1300, 1308 (D.D.C.1995). Article Ill’s ease-or-controversy requirement prohibits courts from issuing advisory opinions or decisions based on hypothetical facts or abstract issues. Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 96, 88 S.Ct. 1942, 20 L.Ed.2d 947 (1968). “The doctrine of mootness is a logical corollary of the case or controversy requirement[.]” Better Gov’t Ass’n v. Dep’t of State, 780 F.2d 86, 90 (D.C.Cir.1986). In cases where challenged conduct ceases and “there is no reasonable expectation that the wrong will be repeated, ... it becomes impossible for the court to grant any effectual relief whatever to the prevailing party, and any opinion as to the legality of the challenged action would be advisory.” City of Erie v. Pap’s A.M., 529 U.S. 277, 287, 120 S.Ct. 1382, 146 L.Ed.2d 265 (2000). Accordingly, a court may not rule on the merits of a case in which the claim for relief is moot. Courts must evaluate mootness “through all stages” of the litigation in order to ensure that a live controversy remains. 21st Century Telesis Joint Venture v. Fed. Commc’ns Comm’n, 318.F.3d 192, 198 (D.C.Cir.2003) (citing Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envt’l Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 191, 120 S.Ct. 693, 145 L.Ed.2d 610 (2000) and Lewis v. Cont’l Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477, 110 S.Ct. 1249, 108 L.Ed.2d 400 (1990)). As a result, “[e]ven where litigation poses a live controversy when filed, the [mootness] doctrine requires a federal court to refrain from deciding it if ‘events have so transpired that the decision will neither presently affect the parties’ rights nor have a more-than-speculative chance of affecting them in the future.’ ” Id. (quoting Clarke v. United States, 915 F.2d 699, 701 (D.C.Cir.1990)). A case is moot when “the issues presented are no longer live or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.” City of Erie, 529 U.S. at 287, 120 S.Ct. 1382 (internal quotations omitted). An intervening event may render a claim moot if (1) there is no reasonable expectation that the conduct will recur and (2) interim relief or events have completely and irrevocably eradicated the effects of the alleged violations. Pharmachemie B.V. v. Barr Labs., Inc., 276 F.3d 627, 631 (D.C.Cir.2002); Sellers v. Bureau of Prisons, 959 F.2d 307, 310 (D.C.Cir.1992). A case is not moot, however, so long as any single claim for relief remains viable, as the remaining live issues satisfy the case-or-controversy requirement. Tucson Med. Ctr. v. Sullivan, 947 F.2d 971, 978 (D.C.Cir.1991) (internal quotations and citations omitted). The burden of establishing mootness rests on the party raising the issue, and it is a heavy burden. County of Los Angeles v. Davis, 440 U.S. 625, 631, 99 S.Ct. 1379, 59 L.Ed.2d 642 (1979); United States v. W.T. Grant Co., 345 U.S. 629, 633, 73 S.Ct. 894, 97 L.Ed. 1303 (1953); Motor & Equip. Mfrs. Ass’n v. Nichols, 142 F.3d 449, 458-59 (D.C.Cir. 1998). b. Because the Court Can Provide an Effective Remedy, the Plaintiffs’ Claims Challenging the Composition of the Promotion Boards Are Not Moot The defendants contend that the plaintiffs’ claims challenging the faith group category composition of Chaplain Corps promotion boards should be dismissed as moot because these claims are premised on policies that no longer exist. Defs.’ Mot. for Partial Dismissal at 16. The defendants maintain that adjudicating these claims “would give plaintiffs no prospective relief.” Id. at 18. The plaintiffs respond that dismissal based on mootness is inappropriate because the court can still provide a remedy through a declaration and injunction, notwithstanding the defendants’ change in its policies. Pis.’ Opp’n to Defs.’ Mot. for Partial Dismissal at 26-27. More specifically, the plaintiffs argue that the court can provide “[a] declaration [stating that] the challenged procedures are unconstitutional,” thereby “void[ing] Plaintiffs’ initial boards, [and] requiring Defendants to convene new selection boards.” Id. at 27. Similarly, they contend that the court can issue “an injunction” that would “prohibit[] the challenged procedures and practices on future selection boards [and] protect[] active duty Plaintiffs ... from further prejudice and unequal treatment.” Id. A case is not moot if a court can provide an effective remedy. United States v. Chrysler Corp., 158 F.3d 1350, 1353 (D.C.Cir.1998) (noting that “ ‘even the availability of a partial remedy’ is ‘sufficient to prevent a case from being moot’ ” (quoting Church of Scientology v. United States, 506 U.S. 9, 13, 113 S.Ct. 447, 121 L.Ed.2d 313 (1992))). As the plaintiffs point out, the court can provide a remedy, namely, a declaration that the Navy Chaplain Corps has violated the Constitution by applying their procedures in a discriminatory fashion, as well as an injunction requiring the Navy to reevaluate the personnel decisions made by the selection boards with respect to the plaintiffs and to prevent such alleged future religious discrimination. Thus, the requested relief would alleviate the alleged past injury that the plaintiffs have suffered, even if, as the defendants argue, these challenged policies no longer exist. Because “[t]he availability of this possible remedy is sufficient to prevent this case from being moot,” Church of Scientology v. United States, 506 U.S. 9, 13, 113 S.Ct. 447, 121 L.Ed.2d 313 (1992), the court denies the defendants’ motion to dismiss insofar as it is based on mootness grounds. 6. The Court Denies the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, Insofar as They Argue that the Plaintiffs Lack Standing to Bring Certain Cla