Not moot or an exception?

We had a bit of a conversation Tuesday trying to unravel whether something is an exception to mootness (moot, but not dismissed) or not moot (so no basis to dismiss). Doctrinally it does not matter--either way, the case continues.

Normatively, we want precision, which is why we had the discussion. Note that it only matters for CRER. The voluntary cessation doctrine is expressly not mootness-if government cannot meet the high standard, the case is not moot and remains alive. Floating classes (in response to inherently transitory claims) make the claim not moot--it remains alive as to the class (independent of any individual plaintiff).

So the controversy surrounds CRER.

For Monday, November 16

Tuesday audio. Double session on Monday--11:05-12:20; 12:30-1:45. I will get argument assignments at the beginning of class; please talk with your colleagues before class.

 Standing papers due Monday. 

We will have a few final words about Mootness. How do political considerations affect justiciability? How does justiciability function as a tool of constitutional avoidance? What happens if a district court enters a judgment, then the case becomes moot while on appeal?

Prep all of Abstention; we will cover all or most of that in the two Monday sessions. Read the Pfander sections on Pullman and equitable restraint; we will do a brief overview of them.

Paper Schedule: We will finish Mootness Monday and papers will be due on Monday, November 23 (final class). If we finish Abstention Monday, those papers will be due on Monday, November 23; if not, those papers will be due when you arrive for oral arguments on December 17. Congressional Control papers will be due when you arrive for oral arguments on December 17.

 

For Tuesday, November 10

Monday audio. Thank you for attending the lecture.

Here is the order in the challenge to the Arc de Trump. The plaintiffs in one action are DC and Virginia; the opinion offers some good analysis of the type of injuries states and municipalities can assert. We will do some final questions (if any) on Standing.

We now move to Ripeness/Mootness. Read the Pfander pages are Ripeness, then really focus on all the reading on mootness. 

Also: Please meet with you co-justice and opposing counsel before the start of class next Monday to decide who will be Chief and who will represent which side. 

Vladeck on the effects of the midterms on the courts

SCOTUS and the lower courts (especially district courts).

Make-up Class (Amended)

12:30-1:45 next Monday, November 16, in RDB 2007.

For Monday, November 9

Tuesday audio. Remember the Judicial Lecture will take place at 12:30 p.m. next Monday, November 9 in the Large Courtroom; class participation points awarded.

Prep Taxpayer Standing and Third-Party Standing. We begin where we left off: If separation of powers cannot explain standing doctrine, what other principles or policies might?

I hope to get to Mootness on Tuesday. 

Settlement in Menocal v. GEO Group

Less than a year after remand from SCOTUS (which basically told GEO it had to stand trial) and on the eve of trial.

For Tuesday, November 3

Monday audio. 11th Am papers due next Monday.

Continue with Constitutional Bases, then prep Taxpayer Standing.

Here is the order dismissing for lack of standing in US v. Alaska; you can see the court's standing analysis.

And for fun, here is the US's Notice of Appeal. See any problems with it?

Judicial Lecture w/ Judge Emil Bove III

 Monday, November 9