🇺🇸
Constitutional Law • Justiciability Doctrines
CONLAW#007
Legal Definition
There are 3 exceptions to the live controversy requirement: (1) injuries capable of repetition but evading review; (2) voluntary cessation; and (3) class actions.
Plain English Explanation
Normally, a court can't hear a case if the problem is no longer there, but there are a few exceptions to this rule.
(1) Injuries capable of repetition but evading review: Sometimes, people have problems that happen over and over again, but they don't last long enough for the case to be heard in court. In these cases, a court can still hear the case because the problem is likely to happen again.
(2) Voluntary cessation: Sometimes, people or organizations stop doing something wrong because they know someone is going to court to talk to a judge about it. In these cases, a court can still hear the case because the problem could start up again if the people or organizations wanted to.
(3) Class actions: Sometimes, many people have the same problem and want to go to court together. A court can still hear the case because the problem affects many people, not just one.
Put simply, there are a few exceptions to the rule that a case can't be heard if the problem is no longer there, like if the problem is likely to happen again, if someone stops doing something wrong because they know someone is going to court, or if many people have the same problem and want to go to court together.
(1) Injuries capable of repetition but evading review: Sometimes, people have problems that happen over and over again, but they don't last long enough for the case to be heard in court. In these cases, a court can still hear the case because the problem is likely to happen again.
(2) Voluntary cessation: Sometimes, people or organizations stop doing something wrong because they know someone is going to court to talk to a judge about it. In these cases, a court can still hear the case because the problem could start up again if the people or organizations wanted to.
(3) Class actions: Sometimes, many people have the same problem and want to go to court together. A court can still hear the case because the problem affects many people, not just one.
Put simply, there are a few exceptions to the rule that a case can't be heard if the problem is no longer there, like if the problem is likely to happen again, if someone stops doing something wrong because they know someone is going to court, or if many people have the same problem and want to go to court together.
Hypothetical
Hypo 1: Amy is a woman who lives in a state where there is a law that says she can't have an abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy. She is 22 weeks pregnant and wants to have an abortion due to a severe birth defect that nearly guarantees the fetus will be stillborn while simultaneously increasing the risk that Amy will die during the pregnancy. Due to the law, Amy cannot find a healthcare provider to assist in the abortion, so she has to go to court to fight for her right to do so. Amy files her lawsuit, but, due to the long legal process, her case is not heard until she is 29 weeks pregnant and Amy suffers a miscarriage. Result: In this example, the case might be considered as "moot" because the injury that Amy wanted to prevent has already happened (the child was born and there is no longer a way to grant Amy her abortion). However, depending on the jurisdiction, the court may still consider the case if it can be argued that the harm caused by the law is capable of repetition but evading review. In other words, it is common for court cases to sometimes take a long time and the law is not only affecting Amy but also other woman that might be in a similar situation. Thus, the court can rule on this issue to prevent this problem from happening again in the future.
Hypo 2: Sam is a person of color who works at TechCo. He notices that there are no people of color in management positions and that many racist jokes and comments are made by his coworkers and supervisors. He decides to file a lawsuit against the company for discrimination and racism. The company finds out about the lawsuit and in response, they change their policies and training programs, and they fire the employees who were making racist comments. Result: The case might be considered as "voluntary cessation" because the company changed its policies and took action against the racist employees, in response to Sam's lawsuit. Even though the company has taken steps to address the problem, the court can still hear Sam's case because the problem could happen again if the company stops enforcing its policies and the racist behavior starts up again.
Hypo 2: Sam is a person of color who works at TechCo. He notices that there are no people of color in management positions and that many racist jokes and comments are made by his coworkers and supervisors. He decides to file a lawsuit against the company for discrimination and racism. The company finds out about the lawsuit and in response, they change their policies and training programs, and they fire the employees who were making racist comments. Result: The case might be considered as "voluntary cessation" because the company changed its policies and took action against the racist employees, in response to Sam's lawsuit. Even though the company has taken steps to address the problem, the court can still hear Sam's case because the problem could happen again if the company stops enforcing its policies and the racist behavior starts up again.
