UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 22-CV-81758-RAR

DONALD J. TRUMP,

Plaintiff,

v.

SELECT COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE

THE JANUARY 6TH ATTACK ON THE 

UNITED STATES CAPITOL, et al.,

Defendants.

_______________________________________________/

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Suggestion of Mootness, [ECF No. 

8], filed on December 30, 2022. Plaintiff Donald J. Trump filed his Complaint, [ECF No. 1], on

November 11, 2022, to prevent the enforcement of a subpoena issued by the House Select 

Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the U.S. Capitol (“Select Committee”). 

However, on December 28, 2022, the Chairman of the Select Committee sent Plaintiff’s counsel a 

letter withdrawing the subpoena at issue in this case. [ECF No. 8-1]. As a result, Plaintiff 

maintains this case is moot and should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction as “there 

would appear to be no need for further relief from this Court and therefore no live controversy 

between the parties related to the previously issued subpoena.” [ECF No. 8] at 1. 

Federal courts only have subject matter jurisdiction over “cases or controversies.” Spencer 

v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998) (citing U.S. Const. art. III, § 2). “When the delegates to the 

Constitutional Convention gathered in the summer of 1787, the extent of federal-court jurisdiction 

formed a focal point of their discussions.” Trichell v. Midland Credit Mgmt., Inc., 964 F.3d 990, 

Case 9:22-cv-81758-RAR Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/04/2023 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

996 (11th Cir. 2020). Ultimately, the “judicial power” bestowed upon federal courts under Article 

III of the United States Constitution by the Founders was limited to resolve only “Cases” or 

“Controversies.” Id. (citing U.S. Const. art. III, § 1–2). “As a result, federal courts may exercise 

their power only ‘for the determination of real, earnest, and vital controversy between 

individuals.’” Id. (quoting Chi. & Grand Trunk Ry. Co. v. Wellman, 143 U.S. 339, 345 (1892)). 

Indeed, “[n]o principle is more fundamental to the judiciary’s proper role in our system of 

government than the constitutional limitation of federal-court jurisdiction to actual cases or 

controversies.” Id. (quoting Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811, 818 (1997)). It is this “case-orcontroversy requirement, embodied in the doctrine of standing, [that] ‘confines the federal courts 

to a properly judicial role.’” Id. (quoting Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330, 338 (2016)). 

Here, the recent withdrawal of the subpoena at issue has effectively eliminated any “real, 

earnest, and vital controversy” between the parties. Trichell, 964 F.3d at 996. Consequently, the 

Court is without subject matter jurisdiction. Thus, having carefully reviewed the record and being 

otherwise fully advised, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the above-styled case is DISMISSED without

prejudice.

1

 All pending motions are DENIED as MOOT and the Clerk is directed to CLOSE

this case.

DONE AND ORDERED in Miami, Florida, this 4th day of January, 2023. 

____________________________________ 

RODOLFO A. RUIZ II

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1

 “A dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is not a judgment on the merits and is entered without 

prejudice.” Stalley ex rel. U.S. v. Orlando Reg’l Healthcare Sys., Inc., 524 F.3d 1229, 1232 (11th Cir. 2008).

Case 9:22-cv-81758-RAR Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/04/2023 Page 2 of 2