{"id":5602,"date":"2011-06-22T08:08:30","date_gmt":"2011-05-27T08:17:42","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2011-05-27T08:17:42","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=5602","title":{"rendered":"SCOTUS: Camreta v. Greene<\/em> moot; so why did they take it?"},"content":{"rendered":"

SCOTUS decides Camreta v. Greene<\/a> is moot. The case \u201cpromised\u201d to decide whether there was a privacy interest in a child at school being interrogated. The Court does reiterate that \u00a7 1983 cases could [not should] be decided on the merits before turning to qualified immunity so the constitutional claims will be decided for the future [not something many courts care to do; after all, it is a way of protecting government officials from lawsuits]. Here, however, the case was moot. From the Syllabus:<\/p>\n

To begin with the nature of these suits: Under \u00a7 1983 and Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U. S. 388, a plaintiff may seek money damages from government officials who have violated her constitutional or statutory rights. But if those officials are entitled to qualified immunity, a court can dismiss the damages claim without ever deciding its merits\u2014and so the qualified immunity situation threatens to leave standards of official conduct permanently in limbo. To prevent that problem, this Court has permitted lower courts to determine whether a right exists before examining whether it was clearly established. See, e.g., Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U. S. 223, 237. Here, the Ninth Circuit followed exactly this two-step process so that it could settle a question of constitutional law and thereby guide the future conduct of officials.<\/p>\n

Given its purpose and effect, such a decision is reviewable in this Court at an immunized official\u2019s behest. If the Court\u2019s usual prevailing party rule applied, the official would either have to acquiesce in a ruling he had no opportunity to contest in this Court, or defy the lower court\u2019s view, adhere to what has been declared an illegal practice, and invite further law suits and possible punitive damages. Id., at 240\u2013241. And applying this Court\u2019s usual bar on review would undermine the purpose of the two-step process, \u201cwhich is to clarify constitutional rights without undue delay.\u201d Bunting v. Mellen, 541 U. S. 1019, 1024 (SCALIA, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari). Just as that purpose may justify an appellate court in reaching beyond an immunity defense to decide a constitutional issue, so too may it support this Court in reviewing the correctness of the lower court\u2019s decision. This holding is limited in two respects. First, it addresses only this Court\u2019s authority to review cases in this procedural posture. The Court need not decide if an appellate court can also entertain an appeal from a party who has prevailed on immunity grounds. Second, the holding concerns only what the Court may review, not what the Court actually will choose to review. Going forward, the Court will consider prevailing parties\u2019 petitions one by one in accord with its usual standards for granting certiorari. Pp. 7\u201314.<\/p>\n

2. A separate jurisdictional problem requires the Court to dismiss this case at the threshold: The case is moot. In a dispute of this kind,both the plaintiff and the defendant ordinarily retain a stake in the outcome. That is true of Camreta, who remains employed as a child protective services worker, and so has an interest in challenging the Ninth Circuit\u2019s ruling requiring him to obtain a warrant before conducting an in-school interview. But S. G. can no longer claim the plaintiff\u2019s usual stake in preserving the court\u2019s holding because she no longer needs protection from the challenged practice. She has moved to Florida and is only months away from her 18th birthday and, presumably, from her high school graduation. When \u201csubsequent events ma[ke] it absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur,\u201d there is no live controversy to review. United States v. Concentrated Phosphate Export Assn., Inc., 393 U. S. 199, 203.<\/p>\n

When a civil suit becomes moot pending appeal, this Court has authority to \u201cdirect the entry of such appropriate judgment, decree, or order, or require such further proceedings … as may be just under the circumstances.\u201d 28 U. S. C. \u00a7 2106. The Court\u2019s \u201cestablished\u201d practice is to vacate the judgment below, see, e.g., United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U. S. 36, 39, to ensure that \u201cthose who have been prevented from obtaining the review to which they are entitled [are] not … treated as if there had been a review,\u201d ibid. The point of vacatur is to prevent an unreviewable decision \u201cfrom spawning any legal consequences.\u201d Id., at 40\u201341. A constitutional ruling in a qualified immunity case is a legally consequential decision. When happenstance prevents this Court\u2019s review of that ruling, the normal rule should apply: Vacatur rightly \u201cstrips the decision below of its binding effect,\u201d Deakins v. Monaghan, 484 U. S. 193, 200, and clears \u201cthe path for future relitigation,\u201d Munsingwear, 340 U. S., at 40. Because mootness has frustrated Camreta\u2019s ability to challenge the Ninth Circuit\u2019s ruling that he must obtain a warrant before interviewing a suspected child abuse victim at school, that part of the Ninth Circuit\u2019s decision must be vacated. Pp. 14\u201318.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Why would four members of the Court decide to take a case that they should have seen was likely going to become moot? This is the second time this Term they have dodged a case: Remember Tolentino v. New York<\/a>? Cert dismissed as improvidently granted<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Every cert grant in a Fourth Amendment case by the Roberts Court creates serious risk of damage to the Fourth Amendment and individual privacy in America. Herring v. United States<\/a>‘s gutting of the exclusionary rule is Exhibit 1. It takes four votes for a cert grant, and the conservative bloc [the Death STAR*] seems willing to do anything to advance the power of government over the citizen. <\/p>\n

It is just bad form to take a case and then dodge it. This tells me that their cert grants are slanted to aid the government. Maybe I’m just overly cynical, but that’s what I feel in my heart of hearts.<\/p>\n

__________<\/p>\n

* Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Roberts.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5602","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5602","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=5602"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5602\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=5602"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=5602"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=5602"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}