The Four Exceptions That Keep a Case Alive
1. Collateral Consequences
Some injuries don’t end when the sentence does. A felony conviction still affects your right to vote, get a license, or serve on a jury. That’s why in Sibron v. New York (392 U.S. 40 (1968)) and Carafas v. LaVallee (391 U.S. 234 (1968)), the Supreme Court ruled that even after release from custody, the lingering “collateral consequences” kept those criminal challenges alive.
It’s not just criminal law, either. In civil cases, unpaid damages or continuing harms—no matter how small—are enough to keep the fire burning.
2. Wrongs Capable of Repetition, Yet Evading Review
Some harms are simply too short-lived for a full trial. Pregnancy was the classic example in Roe v. Wade (410 U.S. 113 (1973)). By the time the case reached the Supreme Court, “Jane Roe” wasn’t pregnant anymore—but the issue was bound to happen again and again, each time faster than litigation could run its course.
The same logic applies to elections (Moore v. Ogilvie, 394 U.S. 814 (1969); Davis v. FEC, 554 U.S. 724 (2008)) and media gag orders (Nebraska Press Ass’n v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539 (1976)).
The test?
The issue is inherently too short to fully litigate.
There’s a reasonable expectation the same party (or type of party) will face it again.
The Court uses discretion here. In Golden v. Zwickler (394 U.S. 103 (1969)), the plaintiff wanted to hand out anonymous leaflets against a congressman who didn’t plan to run again. No repetition, no exception. Case closed.
3. Voluntary Cessation
If a defendant simply “stops” the challenged conduct, can they get the case tossed? Not so fast. The voluntary cessation doctrine exists to prevent defendants from gaming the system.
In United States v. W.T. Grant Co. (345 U.S. 629 (1953)) and Friends of the Earth v. Laidlaw (528 U.S. 167 (2000)), the Court made it clear: you don’t get to hit pause and claim victory. The defendant bears the “formidable burden” of proving it’s absolutely clear the behavior won’t restart.
This exception applies even to governments. When the City of Mesquite repealed a vague licensing law mid-litigation, the Court refused to dismiss, noting the city could just reenact the same ordinance later (City of Mesquite v. Aladdin’s Castle, 455 U.S. 283 (1982)). Similarly, Jacksonville couldn’t dodge review by swapping one minority-contracting law for another (Northeastern Fla. Contractors v. Jacksonville, 508 U.S. 656 (1993)).
Bottom line: stopping the misconduct doesn’t automatically end the case—especially if you can start it up again tomorrow.
4. Class Actions
Class actions play by different rules. Once a class is certified, the case belongs to the class, not just the named plaintiff. That means the case continues even if the lead plaintiff’s issue disappears.
That’s what happened in Sosna v. Iowa (419 U.S. 393 (1975)), where the lead plaintiff met the residency requirement for divorce midway through the case—but other class members hadn’t, so the lawsuit stayed alive.
Even before certification, a plaintiff can often appeal a denial of class status despite personal mootness. In U.S. Parole Comm’n v. Geraghty (445 U.S. 388 (1980)) and Deposit Guar. Nat’l Bank v. Roper (445 U.S. 326 (1980)), the Court recognized that putative class members still had a live stake, preventing dismissal.
The Procedural Twist: Vacatur and Settlements
If the Supreme Court finds a case moot on appeal, it typically vacates the lower court judgment and remands for dismissal—essentially erasing the decision from the books.
But when mootness arises because the parties chose to settle, the Court won’t wipe away the precedent. In U.S. Bancorp v. Bonner Mall (513 U.S. 18 (1994)), the Court refused to vacate a lower ruling just because the losing side paid to make it disappear. Settlements don’t buy you a clean slate.
Why Mootness Still Matters
In an era where lawsuits can outlast the headlines that inspired them, mootness is both a constitutional guardrail and a tactical weapon. For litigators, it’s a reminder to keep the injury alive—through damages, ongoing consequences, or class certification—so the case doesn’t vanish in procedural smoke.
For defendants, it’s a potential escape hatch, but a dangerous one. End the policy too late, and you’re still in the fight; end it too soon, and you look strategic. The doctrine forces both sides to balance timing, substance, and optics.
At its core, mootness isn’t about technicalities—it’s about relevance. Federal courts exist to decide real problems that still matter. Once the problem fades, so does their power.
But thanks to its well-carved exceptions, the doctrine ensures that the law continues to evolve through the cases that almost slipped away.
Key Case References
Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40 (1968).
Carafas v. LaVallee, 391 U.S. 234 (1968).
Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).
Moore v. Ogilvie, 394 U.S. 814 (1969).
Nebraska Press Ass’n v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539 (1976).
Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478 (1982).
Golden v. Zwickler, 394 U.S. 103 (1969).
United States v. W.T. Grant Co., 345 U.S. 629 (1953).
Friends of the Earth v. Laidlaw, 528 U.S. 167 (2000).
City of Mesquite v. Aladdin’s Castle, 455 U.S. 283 (1982).
Northeastern Fla. Contractors v. Jacksonville, 508 U.S. 656 (1993).
Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U.S. 393 (1975).
U.S. Parole Comm’n v. Geraghty, 445 U.S. 388 (1980).
Deposit Guar. Nat’l Bank v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326 (1980).
U.S. Bancorp Mortgage Co. v. Bonner Mall P’ship, 513 U.S. 18 (1994).
