Supreme Court of the United States · 1975 · Federal Courts
Federal CourtsMootnessmootnesscapable of repetition yet evading reviewsame complaining partyparole proceduresnon-class actionvacatur
Facts
Bradford challenged the procedures used by North Carolina parole officials in considering his eligibility for parole, asserting a Fourteenth Amendment entitlement to certain procedural rights. He sought to proceed as a class action, but the district court did not certify a class. While the case was pending, Bradford was temporarily paroled and then completely released from supervision on March 25, 1975. After that release, he no longer had any personal interest in the procedures used to grant parole.
Issue
Whether Bradford's challenge to North Carolina parole procedures remained a live case after he was completely released from supervision. If not, the question was whether the case nevertheless fit the non-class-action exception for issues capable of repetition, yet evading review.
Rule
In the absence of a class action, the "capable of repetition, yet evading review" doctrine applies only when two elements are present: (1) the challenged action is by its duration too short to be fully litigated before it ceases or expires, and (2) there is a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party will be subjected to the same action again.
🔒
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.
Darren Pike sued members of the Ohio Release Review Panel in federal court in Columbus, claiming the panel had to provide additional procedures before deciding whether to place him in a transitional supervision program. The district court denied class certification. While the appeal was pending, Darren completed all custody and supervision and moved to Arizona.
If no evidence suggests Darren will again come under Ohio transitional supervision rules, what is the best disposition?
Explanation. In a non-class action, the capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review exception requires both short duration and a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party will be subjected to the same action again. Once Darren completed custody and supervision, he had no present interest in the challenged procedures. The mere fact that Ohio continues to apply the policy to others is insufficient. (Derived from Weinstein v. Bradford (1975).)