holding that university’s new policy against discriminatory acts of all-male honorary society mooted the society’s appeal seeking to prevent Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare from interpreting the law to require the university to ban society’s activities from campus
How later courts described this case
- holding that university’s new policy against discriminatory acts of all-male honorary society mooted the society’s appeal seeking to prevent Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare from interpreting the law to require the university to ban society’s activities from campus
- holding that the voluntary cessation exception does not apply when the case is mooted by the “voluntary acts of a third party non-defendant”
- explaining that mootness is jurisdictional and the court must consider it even when no party has raised the issue
- affirming the district court's grant of dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1) because the plaintiffs lacked Article III standing
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Justice Brennan,
dissenting.
In my view, the issue of mootness is sufficiently dependent on uncertain factual issues concerning the University’s present intention and future conduct that I would grant the petition for certiorari, vacate the decision of the Court of Appeals, and remand for resolution of this issue.