Mazen Al Najjar v. John Ashcroft

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the remote possibility of recurrence is not enough to overcome mootness, “and even a likely recurrence is insufficient if there would be ample opportunity for review at that time”
• holding that “remote possibility that an event might recur is not enough to overcome mootness, and even a likely recurrence is insufficient if there would be ample opportunity for review at that time”
• noting that the “case or controversy” requirement of Article III unambiguously forbids us from considering the question in the absence of a live dispute
• noting that \[a] case is moot when the issues presented are no longer 'live' or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome\
• explaining that mootness is jurisdictional because federal courts can only resolve “live” cases and controversies
• stating that a decision on the merits of a moot case is an “impermissible advisory opinion” (citation omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).