The Oyez Project: Judicial Power Issues - Mootness Decisions

Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Slater

Did the Court of Appeals err in dismissing Adarand Constructors, Inc.'s suit challenging the U.S. Department of Transportation's procedure for certifying contractors as disadvantaged business enterprises as moot when the Colorado Department of Transportation granted Adarand disadvantaged-business status?

Yes. In a per curiam opinion, the Court held that "[b]ecause, under the circumstances of this case, it is impossible to conclude that respondents have borne their burden of establishing that it is 'absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur,' [Adarand's] cause of action remains alive." "It is no small matter to deprive a litigant of the rewards of its efforts," concluded the opinion, "[s]uch action on grounds of mootness would be justified only if it were absolutely clear that the litigant no longer had any need of the judicial protection that it sought."

Aikens v. California

No details yet.

American Foreign Service Assn. v. Garfinkel

No details yet.

Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona

Was a challenge to a state's efforts to make English its official language a justiciable controversy after the state employee who mounted the challenge left her government job?

No. In a unanimous decision, announced by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Court held that the dispute was moot due to the previous resignation of Yniguez. The Court did not rule on the constitutionality of the article.

Black v. Amen

No details yet.

Bowen v. Kizer

No details yet.

Brotherhood Of Railroad Trainmen v. O'connell

No details yet.

Burke v. Barnes

No details yet.

Cardinal Chemical v. Morton International

Can a federal court, with exclusive jurisdiction over all federal appeals concerning patent litigation, use its finding that a patent has not been infringed as a per se justification for upholding the validity of the disputed patents themselves?

No. In a unanimous decision, the Court held that two questions of law do not always necessarily cancel each other out when only one is resolved. The Court observed that in matters of patent law, noninfringement and invalidity are two separate questions. Therefore, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit may find that a patent has not been infringed but it may not rely on such a determination as a per se basis for vacating a judgement holding the same patent invalid. Although the Court of Appeals' dogmatic practice existed since 1987, it was unsupported by the "case or controversy" requirement of Article III, and imposed undue burdens on those who remained convinced of the disputed patent's invalidity.

Church Of Scientology Of California v. United States

No details yet.

City News & Novelty v. Waukesha

Does the guarantee of prompt judicial review that must accompany an adult business-licensing scheme mean a prompt judicial determination?

The Court did not answer the question. In a unanimous opinion deliver by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Court dismissed the writ of certiorari because City News was not properly situated to raise the question on which the Court granted review. The city of Waukesha had argued the case was moot after City News decided to withdraw its renewal application and close its business upon the city's grant of a license to another business, with which the Court agreed. "We do not doubt that an ongoing adult enterprise facing loss of its license to do business may allege First Amendment injuries. Such an establishment's typical concern, however, is not the speed of court proceedings, but the availability of a stay of adverse action during the pendency of judicial review, however long that review takes," wrote Justice Ginsburg for the Court.

DeFunis v. Odegaard

Was the case in question moot and therefore outside the scope of judicial review?

In a 5-4 per curiam opinion, the Court held that because the University of Washington Law School had agreed to allow DeFunis to enroll and to earn a diploma, the case in question was moot. DeFunis would be able to complete his legal studies irrespective of any Supreme Court decision. The controversy between parties had thus "clearly ceased to be 'definite and concrete' and no longer 'touch[ed] the legal relations of parties having adverse legal interests.'"

Department Of Treasury v. Galioto

No details yet.

Diffenderfer v. Central Baptist Church

No details yet.

Edwards v. Healy

No details yet.

Epa v. Brown

No details yet.

Erie v. Pap's A. M.

Does Erie, Pennsylvania's public indecency ordinance, as applied to prohibit nude dancing, violate the First Amendment's guarantee of free expression?

No. In an opinion delivered by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the Court held that Erie's public indecency ordinance did not violate any cognizable First Amendment protections of expressive conduct. In splintered voting that did not yield a majority opinion, Justice O'Connor wrote for the Court that, "[e]ven if Erie's public nudity ban has some minimal effect on the erotic message by muting that portion of the expression that occurs when the last stitch is dropped, the dancers... are free to perform wearing pasties and G-strings." "The requirement... is a minimal restriction in furtherance of the asserted government interests, and the restriction leaves ample capacity to convey the dancers' erotic message."

Firefighters v. Boston Chapter, NAACP

No details yet.

Foley v. Blair & Co.

No details yet.

Frank v. Minnesota Newspaper Assn., Inc.

No details yet.

Friends of the Earth v. Laidlaw Environmental Services

Does an environmental group's citizen suit for civil penalties under the Clean Water Act become moot when the defendant, after commencement of the litigation, has come into compliance with its National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit?

No. In a 7-2 opinion delivered by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Court held that a citizen suitor's claim for civil penalties need not be dismissed as moot when the defendant, after commencement of the litigation, has come into compliance with its NPDES permit. "A defendant's voluntary cessation of allegedly unlawful conduct ordinarily does not suffice to moot a case," Justice Ginsburg wrote for the Court. "Congress has found that civil penalties in the Clean Water Act cases do more than promote immediate compliance... they also deter future violations," concluded Justice Ginsburg. The Court also ruled that FOE had standing to bring the suit on behalf on its members.

Indiana Employment Division v. Burney

No details yet.

Indianapolis School Comm'rs v. Jacobs

No details yet.

Johnson v. New York State Education Dept.

No details yet.

Kremens v. Bartley

No details yet.

Lake Coal Co., Inc. v. Roberts & Schaefer Co.

No details yet.

Lane v. Williams

No details yet.

Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp.

No details yet.

Mechling Barge Lines v. U.S.

No details yet.

Mosley v. United States

Must jurors be instructed in some bank robbery prosecutions to consider the lesser charge of bank larceny?

The Court did not answer the question. In a per curiam opinion, the Court vacated the order granting the writ of certiorari and dismissed the petition. The Court was "advised that [Sylvester Mosley] died in Springfield, Missouri, on November 16, 1998."

Murphy v. Hunt

No details yet.

North Carolina v. Rice

No details yet.

Northeastern Florida Chapter Of The Associated General Contractors Of America v. City Of Jacksonville, Florida

No details yet.

Noyd v. Bond

No details yet.

Oil Workers Unions v. Missouri

No details yet.

Patterson v. Warner

No details yet.

Preiser v. Newkirk

No details yet.

Publishers' Assn. v. Mailers' Union

No details yet.

Sanks v. Georgia

No details yet.

Scott v. Kentucky Parole Board

No details yet.

Sears, Roebuck v. Carpet Layers

No details yet.

SEC v. Medical Committee For Human Rights

No details yet.

Sibron v. New York

Do the broad search powers conferred on New York State police officers under the State's "stop-and-frisk" law violate the Fourth Amendment's search and seizure protections?

In an 8-to-1 decision, the Court began by noting that although states may grant police officers great latitude in making arrests, all search and seizures are subject to constitutional limitations. In Sibron's case, the Court noted that officer Martinez never actually heard any of the conversations between Sibron and the narcotics addicts. As such, the inference that Sibron engaged in narcotics trafficking merely because he spoke with drug addicts did not constitute probably cause for a warrantless search. Moreover, Martinez's actions could not be justified as a self-protective search for weapons since he admitted that he had no reason to suspect Sibron of concealment. With respect to Peters, the Court upheld his conviction since it flowed from a lawful stop-and-frisk search. The arresting officer observed Peters prowling furtively in a building hallway and had to chase him down before capture. Such suspicious conduct justified the ensuing stop-and-frisk search of Peter's person that, in turn, revealed the incriminating burglar tools.

Spencer v. Kemna

May prison inmates challenge the revocation of their parole after they are re-released on parole?

No. In a 8-1 opinion delivered by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court held that the expiration of Spencer's sentence caused his petition to be moot because it no longer presented an Article III case or controversy. The Court concluded that once a petitioner's sentence has expired he must demonstrate a concrete and continuing injury to maintain suit. Accordingly, the Court rejected that Spencer's asserted injuries established collateral consequences sufficient to state an Article III case or controversy. "The reincarceration that he incurred as a result of that action is now over, and cannot be undone," wrote Justice Scalia. Justice John Paul Stevens filed a dissenting opinion.

Spomer v. Littleton

No details yet.

Super Tire Engineering Co. v. Mccorkle

No details yet.

Tiverton Bd. Of License Comm'rs v. Pastore

No details yet.

United States v. Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Company Of Virginia 516 U.S. 415

Does 47 U.S.C. 533(b), which bars local telephone companies from directly providing video programming to their local phone service subscribers, violate the First Amendment's protection of free speech?

Unanswered. After the Court heard oral arguments, the President signed the Telecommunications Act of 1996 into law. The Act repealed Section 533(b), allowing LECs to provide local cable service if they complied with a series of regulatory measures. The Court instructed the Fourth Circuit to reconsider the case and determine whether it had become moot.

United States v. Green

No details yet.

United States v. Koecher

No details yet.

United States v. N. J. State Lottery Comm'n

No details yet.

University Of Texas v. Camenisch

No details yet.

Vitek v. Jones

No details yet.