Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/11pdf/10-1121c4d6.pdf
Page Number: 11

Cite as:  567 U. S. ____ (2012) 

7 

Opinion of the Court 

would  permit  a  resumption  of  the  challenged  conduct  as 
soon  as  the  case  is  dismissed.  See  City  of  Mesquite  v. 
Aladdin’s  Castle,  Inc.,  455  U. S.  283,  289  (1982).    And 
here,  since  the  union  continues  to  defend  the  legality  of 
the  Political  Fight-Back  fee,  it  is  not  clear  why  the  union 
would  necessarily  refrain  from  collecting  similar  fees  in 
the future. 

The  union  argues  that  concerns  about  voluntary  cessa-
tion  are  inapplicable  in  this  case  because  petitioners  do
not seek any prospective relief.  See Motion to Dismiss as 
Moot  11–12.  But  even  if  that  is  so,  the  union’s  mootness 
argument  fails  because  there  is  still  a  live  controversy  as
to  the  adequacy  of  the  SEIU’s  refund  notice.    A  case  be-
comes moot only when it is impossible for a court to grant
“ ‘ “any effectual relief whatever” to the prevailing party.’ ”  
Erie  v.  Pap’s  A.  M.,  529  U. S.  277,  287  (2000)  (quoting 
Church of Scientology of Cal. v. United States, 506 U. S. 9, 
12  (1992),  in  turn  quoting  Mills  v.  Green,  159  U. S.  651, 
653  (1895)). 
“[A]s  long  as  the  parties  have  a  concrete
interest,  however  small,  in  the  outcome  of  the  litigation, 
the  case  is  not  moot.”    Ellis  v.  Railway  Clerks,  466  U. S. 
435, 442 (1984).

The  District  Court  ordered  the  SEIU  to  send  out  a 
“proper” notice giving employees an adequate opportunity 
to receive a full refund.  2008 WL 850128, *12.  Petitioners 
argue  that  the  notice  that  the  SEIU  sent  was  improper 
because  it  includes  a  host  of  “conditions,  caveats,  and 
confusions  as  unnecessary  complications  aimed  at  reduc-
ing  the  number  of  class  members  who  claim  a  refund.” 
Brief  for  Petitioners  in  Opposition  to  Motion  to  Dismiss 
19.  In  particular,  petitioners  allege  that  the  union  has
refused to accept refund requests by fax or e-mail and has 
made refunds conditional upon the provision of an original 
signature and a Social Security number.  Id., at 18–19.  As 
this dispute illustrates, the nature of the notice may affect 
how  many  employees  who  object  to  the  union’s  special