Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 253

92 

ALVAREZ  v.  SMITH 

Opinion of the Court 

At  oral  argument  counsel  for  both  sides  conﬁrmed  that 
there was no longer any dispute about ownership or posses­
sion of the relevant property.  See Tr. of Oral Arg. 5 (State’s 
Attorney); id., at 56–57 (plaintiffs).  The State had returned 
the  cars  to  plaintiffs  Smith,  Perez,  and  Brunston.  See  id., 
at 5.  Two of the plaintiffs  had “defaulted,” apparently con­
ceding  that  the  State  could  keep  the  cash.  Ibid.  And  the 
ﬁnal plaintiff and the State’s Attorney agreed that the plain­
tiff  could  keep  some,  but  not  all,  of  the  cash  at  issue.  Id., 
at  5,  56–57.  As  counsel  for  the  State’s  Attorney  told  us, 
“[T]hose cases are over.”  Id., at 5. 

II 

The  Constitution  permits  this  Court  to  decide  legal  ques­
tions  only  in  the  context  of  actual  “Cases”  or  “Controver­
sies.”  Art.  III,  § 2.  An  “ ‘actual  controversy  must  be  ex­
tant  at  all  stages  of  review,  not  merely  at  the  time  the 
complaint  is  ﬁled.’ ”  Preiser  v.  Newkirk,  422  U. S.  395,  401 
(1975) (quoting Steffel v.  Thompson, 415 U. S. 452, 459, n. 10 
(1974)).  In  this  case  there  is  no  longer  any  actual  contro­
versy  between the  parties about  ownership or  possession of 
the underlying property. 

The State’s Attorney argues that there is a continuing con­
troversy over damages.  We concede that the plaintiffs ﬁled 
a  motion  in  the  District  Court  seeking  damages.  But  the 
plaintiffs  ﬁled  their  motion  after  the  Seventh  Circuit  is­
sued its opinion.  And, before this Court granted certiorari, 
the  Court  of  Appeals  recalled  its  mandate,  taking  the  case 
away from the District Court before the District Court could 
respond  to  the  motion.  Thus,  we  have  before  us  a  com­
plaint  that  seeks  only  declaratory  and  injunctive  relief,  not 
damages. 

The  plaintiffs  point  out  that  they  sought  certiﬁcation  of  a 
class.  And  a  class  might  well  contain  members  who  con­
tinue to dispute ownership of seized property.  But that fact 
is beside the point.  The District Court denied the plaintiffs’