Sosna v. Iowa

Supreme Court of the United States · 1975 · Family Law

419 U.S. 393 (1975)

Updated August 1, 2026

Family Lawdivorce residency requirementsmootnessclass actionsdurational residency requirementsdivorce jurisdictiondomestic relationsArticle III

Facts

Carol Sosna moved to Iowa in August 1972 with her three children after separating from her husband, with whom she had previously lived in New York. The next month she filed in Iowa state court for dissolution of marriage, but the court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because her husband was not an Iowa resident and she had not been an Iowa resident for the preceding year as required by Iowa Code § 598.6. She then filed this federal suit challenging Iowa's one-year durational residency requirement for divorce and sought to represent a class of Iowa residents who had lived in the state for less than one year and were barred from filing for divorce or legal separation. By the time the case reached the Supreme Court, she had satisfied the one-year requirement and had also obtained a divorce in New York.

Issue

Whether this case remained a live Article III controversy after the named plaintiff's individual claim became moot, because the suit had been certified as a class action. Whether Iowa's one-year durational residency requirement for invoking its divorce jurisdiction violates the United States Constitution by burdening recent residents or by denying an individualized determination of bona fide residence.

Rule

When a named plaintiff had a live controversy when the complaint was filed and when the district court certified the class, a certified class action may remain justiciable even after the named plaintiff's personal claim becomes moot, so long as a live controversy continues between the defendant and members of the certified class, especially where the challenged issue is of such short duration that it would otherwise evade full appellate review. A state may require one year of residence before allowing its courts to grant a divorce, because the state has legitimate interests in ensuring genuine attachment to the forum, avoiding officious intermeddling in matters with another state's paramount interest, and reducing the likelihood of collateral attack on its divorce decrees; such a requirement does not violate due process merely because the state does not provide an individualized determination based only on domicile.

🔒

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

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Nina Patel moved from Oregon to Kansas and, after four months in Wichita, challenged a Kansas law requiring nine months of residence before filing for divorce when the other spouse lives out of state. The federal district court certified a class of Kansas residents who had lived in the state for less than nine months and were barred from filing, but by the time the appeal was heard Nina had lived in Kansas for over a year.

Is the appeal moot?

Explanation. The case remains justiciable where the named plaintiff had a live controversy when suit was filed and when the class was certified, and a live controversy still exists between the defendants and members of the certified class. The majority emphasized that this is especially proper where the durational requirement will usually expire before full appellate review can be completed.