Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 258.0

Cite as: 558 U. S. 87 (2009) 

97 

Opinion of Stevens, J. 

the separate state-court proceedings.  This conclusion is re­
inforced  by  the  fact  that  neither  party,  although  aware  of 
Bancorp, suggested the contrary at oral argument.  Indeed, 
both  parties  argued  against  mootness  at  oral  argument,  a 
fact  that  further  suggests  that  a  desire  to  avoid  review  in 
this  case  played  no  role  at  all  in  producing  the  state  case 
terminations.  Tr.  of  Oral  Arg.  5–11,  33–38.  And  if  the 
presence  of  this  federal  case  played  no  role  in  causing  the 
termination  of  those  state  cases,  there  is  not  present  here 
the kind of “voluntary forfeit[ure]” of a legal remedy that led 
the Court in Bancorp to ﬁnd that considerations of “fairness” 
and “equity” tilted against vacatur. 

We  consequently  conclude  that  we  should  follow  our  ordi­
nary practice, thereby “clear[ing] the path for future relitiga­
tion  of  the  issues.”  Munsingwear,  340  U. S.,  at  40.  Thus, 
nothing in this opinion prevents the plaintiffs from bringing 
a  claim  for  damages  based  on  the  conduct  alleged  in  their 
complaint.  Id., at 37–40. 

We  therefore  vacate  the  judgment  of  the  Court  of  Ap­
peals  and  remand  the  case  to  that  court  with  instructions 
to dismiss. 

It is so ordered. 

Justice  Stevens,  concurring  in  part  and  dissenting  in 

part. 

While  I  agree  that  this  case  is  moot  and  join  Parts  I  and 
II  of  the  Court’s  opinion,  I  would  not  vacate  the  judgment 
of the Court of Appeals.  Following the teaching of our deci­
sion in U. S. Bancorp Mortgage Co. v.  Bonner Mall Partner­
ship,  513  U. S.  18  (1994),  I  would  apply  the  general  rule 
against vacating appellate judgments that have become moot 
because the parties settled. 

Bancorp  set  forth  the  basic  principles  for  determining 
whether  to  vacate  a  case  that  has  become  moot.  The 
overriding  concern  is  equitable:  “From  the  beginning  we 
have  disposed  of  moot  cases  in  the  manner  ‘ “most  conso­