Is the law suit still relevant? I thought it became moot after they had the settlement conference, moved Jahi out of CHO and got their feeding tubes. Is there any point in pursuing the discrimination angle? I wouldn't think that any courts want to touch the huge can of worms that would open if it was successfully argued that people with death certificates are eligible for the same things people with disabilities are eligible for.
Not moot, imo. The settlement conference was just for TRO issues -- emergent relief to maintain the status quo pending the outcome of the litigation. As I understand it, the parents are asserting their own rights, not those of Jahi. So I think the question of mootness or standing would arise, if at all, after her heart stops. Even then, I'm not sure they can't still assert their rights about what happened prior to her death. Haven't thought that through completely, though.
However, I have a vague recollection that there's a standing doctrine that operates where the nature of the issue is such that it might never be litigated if someone didn't have standing even after the event at issue has taken place. Can't remember what it's called off the top of my head. I'll see if I can find a link.
all jmo
eta: not the link I was looking for, but this discusses injunctive relief and mootness
~snip
Generally, a case is not moot so long as the plaintiff continues to have an injury for which the court can award relief, even if entitlement to the primary relief has been mooted and what remains is small./6/ Put differently, the presence of a “collateral” injury is an exception to mootness./7/ As a result, distinguishing claims for injunctive relief from claims for damages is important. Because damage claims seek compensation for past harm, they cannot become moot./8/ Short of paying plaintiff the damages sought, a defendant can do little to moot a damage claim. The virtual impossibility that unpaid damage claims can become moot gives rise to a technique for avoiding mootness: plead a claim for damages if the claim has a reasonable basis./9/ Although later events may moot the claim for injunctive relief, the claim for damages presents an opportunity to determine the legality of the conduct at issue./10/ An interest in attorney fees, however, will not save a case involving nothing more from mootness./11/ Similarly, in considering mootness, it is important to distinguish between claims for different forms of injunctive relief. For example, claims for retroactive injunctive relief are not moot simply because claims for prospective relief are. The past injury has not been remedied.
http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/21
HA...found it in the same link:
3.3.B.2. Conduct Capable of Repetition Yet Evading Review
Challenges to recurrent conduct of short duration often avoid mootness under the exception for acts “capable of repetition yet evading review.” Conduct is capable of repetition but evading review when (1) the duration of the challenged action is too short to be litigated fully before the cessation or expiration of the challenged conduct, and (2) the plaintiff is reasonably expected to be subject to the same action in the future./30/ Determining whether this exception applies therefore requires an assessment of the probability of repetition or recurrence, the risk that repeated harm will be of sufficiently short duration so as to evade review and remedy, and the extent to which repetition may affect the plaintiff./31/
This branch of the mootness doctrine frequently overlaps with voluntary cessation. The choice between the two is significant because of the differing burdens. The defendant has the heavy burden of showing that voluntary cessation of unlawful conduct moots a case, while the plaintiff has the burden of showing that conduct is capable of repetition yet evading review./32/
First, actions evade review when they are “too short to be fully litigated prior to cessation or expiration.”/33/ The question is whether the action is inherently of brief duration or whether it can be reviewed in sufficient time for the plaintiff to obtain a meaningful remedy if she prevails./34/ Therefore, if circumstances suggest that a possible recurrence of challenged conduct could be litigated should it arise, courts decline to invoke the exception. Such circumstances include the possible use of motions for preliminary injunction, emergency stays, and expedited appeals. Should a plaintiff fail to attempt to avail itself of these procedural opportunities, courts are disinclined to regard the matter as evading review./35/ Advocates are, therefore, advised first to pursue these avenues for relief when appropriate.
Second, the Supreme Court has been inconsistent in its treatment of the requirement that the conduct be shown to be capable of repetition; the Court wavered between the more stringent requirement of a “demonstrated probability” and the less stringent requirement of a “reasonable expectation” of repetition./36/ In City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, a challenge to a city policy of using choke holds to subdue suspected criminals, the Court held that a generalized showing that conduct might recur was not sufficient to trigger the exception./37/ The Court stated that the “doctrine applies only in exceptional situations, and generally only in those cases in which the named plaintiff can make a reasonable showing that he will again be subjected to the alleged illegality.”/38/
However, in Honig v. Doe, the Court limited Lyons./39/ The Court stated that Lyons held only that the Court was “unwilling to assume that the party seeking relief will repeat the type of misconduct that would once again place him or her at risk of that injury.”/40/ The Court held that a “reasonable expectation” of recurrence was sufficient to overcome a suggestion of mootness: “in numerous cases ... we have found controversies capable of repetition based on expectations that, while reasonable, were hardly demonstrably probable.”/41/ Such a reasonable expectation may be found in the history of the plaintiff’s relationship with the defendant./42/
Third, the plaintiff must show that he, rather than simply anyone, “will again be subjected to the alleged illegality.”/43/ Despite this restrictive language, the Court has invoked the exception in circumstances in which the probability of recurrence to the plaintiff is not obvious. Litigation involving the regulation of abortion,/44/ elections,/45/ and press access to trials/46/ has proceeded despite claims of mootness without any apparent basis for a finding of probable recurrence./47/ The public importance of the issue may explain the more relaxed approach in these narrow categories of cases./48/ At the same time, the nature of the recurrent action need not be exactly the same as the first, at least in as-applied election law cases./49/
