Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 255.0

94 

ALVAREZ  v.  SMITH 

Opinion of the Court 

event, since those who are directly affected by the forfeiture 
practices  might  bring  damages  actions,  the  practices  do  not 
“evade  review.”  See  Memphis  Light,  Gas  &  Water  Div.  v. 
Craft, 436 U. S. 1, 8–9 (1978) (damages claim saves case from 
mootness).  Consequently, the case is moot.  See, e. g., 
Preiser, supra, at 403–404; Mills, supra, at 658. 

III 

It  is  less  easy  to  say  whether  we  should  order  the  judg­
ment  below  vacated.  The  statute  that enables  us  to  vacate 
a lower court judgment when a case becomes moot is ﬂexible, 
allowing  a  court  to  “direct  the  entry  of  such  appropriate 
judgment, decree, or order, or require such further proceed­
ings to be had as may be just under the circumstances.”  28 
U. S. C.  § 2106;  see  also  U.  S.  Bancorp  Mortgage  Co.  v. 
Bonner Mall Partnership, 513 U. S. 18, 21 (1994).  Applying 
this statute, we normally do vacate the lower court judgment 
in  a  moot  case  because  doing  so  “clears  the  path  for  future 
relitigation  of  the  issues  between  the  parties,”  preserving 
“the rights of all parties,” while prejudicing none “by a deci­
sion which . . .  was  only  preliminary.”  Munsingwear,  340 
U. S., at 40. 

In  Bancorp,  however,  we  described  circumstances  where 
we would not do so.  We said that, “[w]here mootness results 
from  settlement”  rather  than  “ ‘happenstance,’ ”  the  “losing 
party  has  voluntarily  forfeited  his  legal  remedy  .  .  .  [and] 
thereby  surrender[ed]  his  claim  to  the  equitable  remedy 
of  vacatur.”  513  U. S.,  at  25.  The  plaintiffs,  pointing  out 
that  the  State’s  Attorney  agreed  to  return  all  three  cars 
and  some  of  the  cash,  claim  that,  with  respect  to  at  least 
four of the plaintiffs, this case falls within Bancorp’s “settle­
ment” exception. 

In  our  view,  however,  this  case  more  closely  resembles 
mootness  through  “happenstance”  than  through  “settle­
ment”—at  least  the  kind  of  settlement  that  the  Court  con­
sidered  in  Bancorp.  Bancorp  focused  upon  a  bankruptcy­