Doug, is the complaint seeking money as damages for wrongful denial? That seems to run into the 11th. I assumed plaintiffs can only ask for prospective relief in this case.
Best, Eric Sent from my iPhone On Apr 18, 2017, at 5:04 PM, Laycock, H Douglas (hdl5c) <hd...@virginia.edu<mailto:hd...@virginia.edu>> wrote: Have they given the dollars? Or just said they will? The voluntary cessation doctrine is all about the just-said-they-will cases. They might change their mind, and here there would seem to be a very live threat that they will change their mind because they might be forced to. Maybe there are countervailing considerations of constitutional avoidance here. Maybe they should dig it. But they should not say it is moot unless the dollars are actually transferred. Of course as with any justiciability doctrine, they can make it moot by how they describe the facts. They can simply say there is no chance of a policy reversal, even if that is obviously false. With five votes you can do anything, as the saying goes. But I think that this case is not moot, at least until the church gets the money. I assume that no one could sue under Missouri law to force the state to reclaim the money after it’s paid out, but I don’t actually know that. They have been holding Douglas County Schools for Trinity Church. Douglas County presents more-or-less the same issue in the context of a school choice program. A reasonable prediction is either GVR or cert denied, depending on what happens on the merits in Trinity Church. But if Trinity Church is digged, or held moot, then it seems likely that those who voted to grant cert in that case will now vote to grant in Douglas County. Full disclosure: I am on the briefs in Douglas County. But I write about voluntary cessation under my Remedies hat. Douglas Laycock Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law University of Virginia Law School 580 Massie Road Charlottesville, VA 22903 434-243-8546 From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu> [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Marty Lederman Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2017 4:40 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>> Subject: Re: Is Trinity Lutheran Church moot? But Doug, the relied requested was simply the ability to compete for the grant without the church disqualification -- and they've now received precisely that. It's also not simply a policy change -- it is, presumably, a conclusion that they are legally required not to exclude the church. Yes, it is true that if the agency gives the $$ to TLC, there might well be a state-court lawsuit by a taxpayer--one that might one day reach the SCOTUS. But why does that possibility make this case -- between the church and the agency -- justiciable, when both of those parties (there is no "other side") agree that the church should be eligible to compete, and the church is receiving the requested relief? On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 4:32 PM, Laycock, H Douglas (hdl5c) <hd...@virginia.edu<mailto:hd...@virginia.edu>> wrote: Giving the church the tires or the money would moot the case. But so far, they have only announced a policy change, and that does not moot the case—especially where, as here, the other side has a plausible claim and could immediately sue the state officials to prevent them from granting the money or the tires and to force them to reverse the policy change. A decision to that effect could be reviewed in a different lawsuit, but that is always true in voluntary cessation cases. If the policy is ever reversed, the court could decide about it then. But the voluntary cessation doctrine says that the plaintiff who has gotten this far is entitled to a decision now, in this case. Douglas Laycock Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law University of Virginia Law School 580 Massie Road Charlottesville, VA 22903 434-243-8546<tel:(434)%20243-8546> From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu> [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu>] On Behalf Of Marty Lederman Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2017 3:31 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>> Subject: Is Trinity Lutheran Church moot? Answer: Probably, but it may depend upon some still-uncertain facts: https://balkin.blogspot.com/2017/04/is-trinity-lutheran-church-case-moot.html<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fbalkin.blogspot.com%2F2017%2F04%2Fis-trinity-lutheran-church-case-moot.html&data=02%7C01%7Cesegall%40gsu.edu%7C6dba6b66270549ffeb8708d4869e91c9%7C515ad73d8d5e4169895c9789dc742a70%7C0%7C0%7C636281462987771054&sdata=xdC1a62HrN9Y7tHOw1J7GrwTR%2F3d8y8rJKTHnCVGw8s%3D&reserved=0> _______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.ucla.edu%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Freligionlaw&data=02%7C01%7Cesegall%40gsu.edu%7C6dba6b66270549ffeb8708d4869e91c9%7C515ad73d8d5e4169895c9789dc742a70%7C0%7C0%7C636281462987771054&sdata=%2F%2Bu1EGTho3HUZKaZKHROOGqLnxwFI2bFrOW9ioaUwus%3D&reserved=0> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others. _______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.ucla.edu%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Freligionlaw&data=02%7C01%7Cesegall%40gsu.edu%7C6dba6b66270549ffeb8708d4869e91c9%7C515ad73d8d5e4169895c9789dc742a70%7C0%7C0%7C636281462987781058&sdata=Epngd8mvGK8S8uRPH%2FgKhywXoWiu24p36XxRycT3N8g%3D&reserved=0 Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
