Article 3, Section 2, Clause 1 — General Criteria Of Mootness

prev | next

Article III, Section 2, Clause 1:

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State, between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

Under current law, “a case is moot when the issues presented are no longer ‘live’ or the parties lack a cognizable interest in the outcome.” [1](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-3/section-2/clause-1/general-criteria-of-mootness#fn1art3 " City of Los Angeles v. Davis, 440 U.S. 625, 631 (1979) (quoting Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 498 (1969)). See also, e.g., Chafin v. Chafin, 568 U.S. 165, 172 (2013) (same); City of Erie v. Pap’s A.M., 529 U.S. 277, 287 (2000) (same). ") “[A]n actual controversy must exist not only at the time the complaint is filed, but through all stages of the litigation.” [2](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-3/section-2/clause-1/general-criteria-of-mootness#fn2art3 " Kingdomware Techs., Inc. v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1969, 1975 (2016) (quoting Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc., 568 U.S. 85, 90–91 (2013)). See also, e.g., Decker v. Nw. Envtl. Def. Ctr., 568 U.S. 597, 609 (2013) ( “It is a basic principle of Article III that a justiciable case or controversy must remain extant at all stages of review, not merely at the time the complaint is filed.” ) (quoting United States v. Juvenile Male, 564 U.S. 932, 936 (2011) (per curiam)); Lewis v. Cont’l Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477–78 (1990) ( “To sustain our jurisdiction . . . it is not enough that a dispute was very much alive when suit was filed, or when review was obtained in the Court of Appeals.” ); Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305, 317 (1988) ( “That the dispute between parties was very much alive when suit was filed . . . cannot substitute for the actual case or controversy that an exercise of this Court’s jurisdiction requires.” ); Burke v. Barnes, 479 U.S. 361, 363 (1987) ( “Article III of the Constitution requires that there be a live case or controversy at the time that a federal court decides the case; it is not enough that there may have been a live case or controversy when the case was decided by the court whose judgment we are reviewing.” ). ") Thus, “[i]f an intervening circumstance deprives the plaintiff of a ‘personal stake in the outcome of the lawsuit[ ]’ at any point during litigation, the action can no longer proceed and must be dismissed as moot.” [3](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-3/section-2/clause-1/general-criteria-of-mootness#fn3art3 " Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 577 U.S. 153, 161 (2016) (quoting Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk, 569 U.S. 66, 72 (2013)). See also Calderon v. Moore, 518 U.S. 149, 150 (1996) (per curiam) ( “[M]ootness can arise at any stage of litigation.” ). ") “A case becomes moot only when it is impossible for a court to grant any effectual relief whatever to the prevailing party.” [4](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-3/section-2/clause-1/general-criteria-of-mootness#fn4art3 " Knox v. Serv. Emps. Int’l Union, Local 1000, 567 U.S. 298, 307 (2012) (quoting City of Erie, 529 U.S. at 287) (internal quotation marks omitted). See also, e.g., Mission Prod. Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC, 139 S. Ct. 1652, 1660 (2019) (same); Campbell-Ewald, 577 U.S. at 161 (same); Decker, 568 U.S. at 609 (same); Chafin, 568 U.S. at 172 (same). ") When (1) “it can be said with assurance that there is no reasonable expectation that the alleged violation will recur;” and (2) “interim relief or events have completely and irrevocably eradicated the effects of the alleged violation,” then “the case is moot because neither party has a legally cognizable interest in the final determination of the underlying questions of fact and law.” [5](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-3/section-2/clause-1/general-criteria-of-mootness#fn5art3 " City of Los Angeles, 440 U.S. at 631. See also, e.g., City of Erie, 529 U.S. at 287 (holding that a case becomes moot “when the challenged conduct ceases such that ‘there is no reasonable expectation that the wrong will be repeated’” ) (quoting United States v. W.T. Grant Co., 345 U.S. 629, 633 (1953)). ")

Significantly, however, a case does not necessarily become moot simply because intervening events make it impossible for a federal court to issue the exact form of relief that the plaintiff requests.[6](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-3/section-2/clause-1/general-criteria-of-mootness#fn6art3 " See Chafin, 568 U.S. at 177 ( “Such relief would of course not be fully satisfactory, but with respect to the case as a whole, even the availability of a partial remedy is sufficient to prevent a case from being moot.” ) (quoting Calderon, 518 U.S. at 150) (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted); Church of Scientology of Cal. v. United States, 506 U.S. 9, 12–13 (1992) ( “While a court may not be able to return the parties to the status quo ante . . . a court can fashion some form of meaningful relief in circumstances such as these . . . The availability of this possible remedy is sufficient to prevent this case from being moot.” ). ") As long as the court retains the ability to “fashion some form of meaningful relief, “then that” is sufficient to prevent th[e] case from being moot.” [7](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-3/section-2/clause-1/general-criteria-of-mootness#fn7art3 " Id. at 12–13. See also, e.g., Chafin, 568 U.S. at 177 ( “[E]ven the availability of a partial remedy is sufficient to prevent a case from being moot.” ) (quoting Calderon, 518 U.S. at 150) (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted). ") To illustrate, “[i]f there is any chance of money changing hands” as a result of the lawsuit, then the “suit remains live.” [8](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-3/section-2/clause-1/general-criteria-of-mootness#fn8art3 " Mission Prod. Holdings, 139 S. Ct. at 1660. ") Similarly, even if it is uncertain that the relief granted by the court will ultimately have any meaningful practical impact on the plaintiff, that does not itself render the case moot.[9](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-3/section-2/clause-1/general-criteria-of-mootness#fn9art3 " See Chafin, 568 U.S. at 175 ( “Enforcement of the order may be uncertain if Ms. Chafin chooses to defy it, but such uncertainty does not typically render cases moot. Courts often adjudicate disputes where the practical impact of any decision is not assured.” ). ")

Intervening circumstances that may render a case moot can result either from actions attributable to the litigants or from outside forces. For example, in the City News & Novelty, Inc. v. City of Waukesha case discussed in greater detail below, the Court ruled that an adult business’s challenge to a municipality’s decision to deny the business’s license became moot after the business chose to cease operations while the case was pending on appeal.[10](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-3/section-2/clause-1/general-criteria-of-mootness#fn10art3 " See 531 U.S. 278, 281–84 (2001). ") A lawsuit predicated upon a federal statute may also become moot if Congress amends the statute while the suit remains pending.[11](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-3/section-2/clause-1/general-criteria-of-mootness#fn11art3 " Lewis v. Cont’l Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 474 (1990) ( “We conclude that the case has been rendered moot by 1987 amendments to the Bank Holding Company Act.” ). ") A case may also become moot merely through the passage of time; for instance, the Court ruled in Camreta v. Greene that a child’s constitutional challenge to an elementary school’s methods of interviewing its students became moot after “the child [grew] up and moved across the country” and thus would “never again be subject to the . . . in-school interviewing practices whose constitutionality [wa]s at issue.” [12](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-3/section-2/clause-1/general-criteria-of-mootness#fn12art3 " 563 U.S. 692, 698 (2011). ")

The Court’s 1974 opinion in DeFunis v. Odegaard illustrates how the aforementioned legal principles apply in practice.[13](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-3/section-2/clause-1/general-criteria-of-mootness#fn13art3 " 416 U.S. 312 (1974) (per curiam). ") The petitioner in DeFunis applied for admission at a public law school.[14](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-3/section-2/clause-1/general-criteria-of-mootness#fn14art3 " Id. at 314. ") After the school rejected his application, the petitioner filed suit, “contending that the procedures and criteria employed by the Law School Admissions Committee invidiously discriminated against him on account of his race.” [15](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-3/section-2/clause-1/general-criteria-of-mootness#fn15art3 " Id. See also and (discussing constitutional challenges to educational admissions practices that allegedly discriminate on the basis of race). ") The trial court agreed and ordered the law school to admit the petitioner.[16](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-3/section-2/clause-1/general-criteria-of-mootness#fn16art3 " DeFunis, 417 U.S. at 314–15. ") The petitioner accordingly started taking classes at the law school while the case was on appeal.[17](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-3/section-2/clause-1/general-criteria-of-mootness#fn17art3 " Id. at 315. ") By the time the case reached the Supreme Court, the petitioner had almost completed his law degree,[18](https://www.law.cornell.edu/cons