Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/10pdf/10-10.pdf
Page Number: 10.0

6 

TURNER v. ROGERS 

Opinion of the Court 

are  presumed  to  continue),  with  Spencer  v.  Kemna,  523 
U. S. 1, 14 (1998) (declining to extend the presumption to 
parole revocation).

The  short,  conclusive  answer  to  respondents’  mootness 
claim,  however,  is  that  this  case  is  not  moot  because  it 
falls within a special category of disputes that are “capable
of  repetition”  while  “evading  review.”    Southern  Pacific 
Terminal Co. v. ICC, 219 U. S. 498, 515 (1911).  A dispute
falls  into  that  category,  and  a  case  based  on  that  dispute 
remains  live,  if  “(1)  the  challenged  action  [is]  in  its  dura-
tion too short to be fully litigated  prior to its  cessation or
expiration, and (2) there [is] a reasonable expectation that
the same complaining party [will] be subjected to the same
action  again.”  Weinstein  v.  Bradford,  423  U. S.  147,  149 
(1975) (per curiam).

Our precedent makes clear that the “challenged action,”
Turner’s  imprisonment  for  up  to  12  months,  is  “in  its 
duration  too  short  to  be  fully  litigated”  through  the  state 
courts (and arrive here) prior to its “expiration.”  See, e.g., 
First  Nat.  Bank  of  Boston  v.  Bellotti,  435  U. S.  765, 
774  (1978)  (internal  quotation  marks  omitted)  (18-month 
period too short); Southern Pacific Terminal Co., supra, at 
514–516 (2-year period too short).  At the same time, there 
is  a  more  than  “reasonable”  likelihood  that  Turner  will 
again  be  “subjected  to  the  same  action.”    As  we  have 
pointed out, supra, at 2–3, Turner has frequently failed to 
make his child support payments.  He has been the subject 
of  several  civil  contempt  proceedings.    He  has  been  im-
prisoned  on  several  of those  occasions.    Within  months  of 
his  release  from  the  imprisonment  here  at  issue  he  was
again  the  subject  of  civil  contempt  proceedings.  And  he 
was  again  imprisoned,  this  time  for  six  months.    As  of 
December 9, 2010, Turner was $13,814.72 in arrears, and 
another contempt hearing was scheduled for May 4, 2011.
App.  104a;  Reply  Brief  for  Petitioner  3,  n. 1.  These  facts 
bring  this  case  squarely  within  the  special  category  of