Mootness

Mootness is one of several problems created by Article III's limitation of the jurisdiction of federal courts to “Cases” and “Controversies.” The mootness problem arises when the issue that is being litigated has become resolved in one way or another, thus leaving the plaintiff with no current complaint. For example, in a leading mootness case, DeFunis v. Odegaard (1974), the petitioner complained that admissions procedures at the University of Washington Law School denied him (a white male) equal protection. He was admitted to the school pending litigation, and his case was docketed for argument shortly before he was about to graduate. A 5‐to‐4 majority dismissed his action, holding that it would have become moot by the time the merits were reached.

An important exception to the mootness exclusion is for cases “capable of repetition, yet evading review” (Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 1911, p. 515). The exception has been applied in cases involving the constitutionality of government restrictions on abortion. In such actions, a pregnant woman contesting state‐imposed restrictions on her access to abortion would certainly carry her pregnancy to term before her challenge could be resolved (see Roe v. Wade, 1973).

See also Cases and Controversies; Justiciability.

William M. Wiecek