United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2017 · Constitutional Law
869 F.3d 286
Updated
conlawmootnessArticle III jurisdictionArticle IIIjurisdictiongraduationcontinuing interestremand
Facts
Gavin Grimm sued the Gloucester County School Board in July 2015, alleging that the Board's restroom policy violated Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause. The district court dismissed his Title IX claim and denied a preliminary injunction. While the case was pending through multiple appeals and remands, Grimm apparently graduated from high school on June 10, 2017. The parties disputed whether Grimm still had a concrete interest in injunctive relief and whether the School Board's policy applied to alumni, but the appellate record contained only unsupported assertions on those points.
Issue
Whether the case had become moot because Grimm graduated from high school, thereby depriving the federal courts of Article III jurisdiction. More specifically, whether the appellate court could decide mootness on the existing record or instead had to remand for factual development.
Rule
A federal court must have an actual controversy at all stages of review, and jurisdiction must be resolved before the court may reach the merits. When mootness is questioned and the facts necessary to determine continuing Article III jurisdiction are not established in the record, the proper course is to remand to the district court for factual development and an initial determination of mootness.
🔒
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
Leah Moreno sued the Redstone County Library District in North Carolina, seeking an injunction against a patron-access rule she claimed excluded her from certain facilities. While her appeal from the denial of preliminary relief was pending, the district announced that Leah had moved out of the county, and both sides filed briefs making conflicting assertions about whether the rule still applies to nonresident cardholders, but the appellate record contains no evidence on that point.
What should the court of appeals do first?
Explanation. A federal court must have a live controversy at all stages of review, and jurisdiction must be resolved before the court may address the merits. When mootness is raised but the facts necessary to decide continuing jurisdiction are absent from the record, the proper course is to remand for factual development and an initial district court determination. (Derived from Grimm v. Gloucester County School Board (n.d.).)