Roger Merle Green Party State Committee, Inc. v. United States

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 passing of the election at issue did not moot appellant’s attack on the constitutionality of the Hatch Act as applied to federal employees
• holding that it was “reasonable to expect that Merle will wish to run for election either in 2004 or at some future date” without even allegations of intent to do so
• holding that election law challenge was not moot because it was reasonable to assume plaintiff would run for office again, and the same statute that caused plaintiff to sue would again bar candidacy
• stating that “most election cases[ ] fit[ ] squarely within the ‘capable of repetition yet evading review’ exception to the mootness doctrine”
• stating that “most election cases[] fit[] squarely within the ‘capable of repetition yet evading review’ exception to the mootness doctrine”
• explaining that plaintiffs' claims were not moot even after election had ended because it was reasonable to assume that plaintiff would attempt to run for office again, and the same statute that caused plaintiff to file suit would again bar his candidacy for office

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).