Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 248

OCTOBER  TERM,  2009 

87 

Syllabus 

ALVAREZ,  COOK  COUNTY  STATE’S  ATTORNEY  v.
 
SMITH  et al.
 

certiorari to the united states court of appeals for 
the seventh circuit 

No. 08–351.  Argued October 14, 2009—Decided December 8, 2009 

Illinois  law  provides  for  forfeiture  of  movable  personal  property  used  to 
facilitate  a  drug  crime,  permits  police  to  seize  the  property  without  a 
warrant,  and  allows  the  State  to  keep  the  property  nearly  ﬁve  months 
before beginning judicial forfeiture proceedings.  Respondents, six indi­
viduals  who  had  cars  and  cash  seized  under  that  law,  brought  this  fed­
eral civil rights action, claiming that the failure of the State to provide 
a  speedy  postseizure  hearing  violated the  Federal  Due  Process  Clause. 
The  District  Court  dismissed  the  case  based  on  Circuit  precedent,  but, 
on appeal,  the Seventh  Circuit departed  from that  precedent and  ruled 
for  respondents.  This  Court  granted  certiorari  to  review  the  Seventh 
Circuit’s  due  process  determination,  but  at  oral  argument  the  Court 
learned that all of the actual property disputes between the parties had 
been resolved. 

Held: 

1.  The  case  is  moot.  The  Constitution  permits  this  Court  to  decide 
legal questions only in the context of actual “Cases” or “Controversies,” 
Art. III, § 2, and an actual controversy must exist at all stages of review, 
not  just  when  the  complaint  is  ﬁled,  Preiser  v.  Newkirk,  422  U. S.  395, 
401.  Here  there  is no  longer  any  actual  controversy regarding  owner­
ship  or  possession  of  the  underlying  property.  There  is  no  claim  for 
damages before this Court; there is no properly certiﬁed class or dispute 
over class certiﬁcation; and this case does not ﬁt within the category of 
cases that are “capable of repetition” while “evading review.”  Only an 
abstract dispute about the law remains.  Pp. 92–94. 

2.  The  judgment  below  is  vacated.  In  moot  cases,  this  Court  nor­
mally vacates the lower court judgment, which clears the path for reliti­
gation of the issues and preserves the rights of the parties, while preju­
dicing none by a preliminary decision.  United States v.  Munsingwear, 
Inc.,  340  U. S.  36,  40.  Where  mootness  is  the  result  of  settlement 
rather than happenstance, however, the losing party forfeits the equita­
ble  remedy  of  vacatur.  U.  S.  Bancorp  Mortgage  Co.  v.  Bonner  Mall 
Partnership,  513  U. S.  18,  25.  This  case  more  closely  resembles  moot­
ness  through  happenstance  than  through  settlement.  In  Bancorp,  the 
party  seeking  review  caused  the  mootness  by  voluntarily  settling  the