Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-968_8nj9.pdf
Page Number: 27

Cite as:  592 U. S. ____ (2021) 

11 

ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting 

The best that can be said for the Court’s sweeping excep-
tion to the case-or-controversy requirement is that it may 
itself admit of a sweeping exception: Where a plaintiff asks
only  for  a  dollar,  the  defendant  should  be  able  to end  the 
case  by  giving  him  a  dollar,  without  the  court  needing  to
pass  on  the  merits  of  the  plaintiff ’s  claims.   Although  we
recently  reserved  the  question  whether  a  defendant  can 
moot a case by depositing the full amount requested by the 
plaintiff, Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 577 U. S. 153, 166 
(2016), our cases have long suggested that he can, see, e.g., 
California v. San Pablo & Tulare R. Co., 149 U. S. 308, 313– 
314 (1893).  The United States agrees, arguing in its brief 
in “support” of the petitioners that “the defendant should be
able to end the litigation without a resolution of the consti-
tutional merits, simply by accepting the entry of judgment
for nominal damages against him.”  Brief for United States 
as Amicus Curiae 29.  The defendant can even file an offer 
of judgment for one dollar, rendering the plaintiff liable for 
any subsequent costs if he receives only nominal damages.
See Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 68(d).  This is a welcome caveat, 
and  it  may  ultimately  save  federal  courts  from  issuing
reams of advisory opinions.  But it also highlights the flim-
siness of the Court’s view of the separation of powers.  The 
scope of our jurisdiction should not depend on whether the 
defendant decides to fork over a buck. 

* 

* 

* 
Five years after Hamilton wrote Federalist No. 78, Secre-
tary  of  State  Thomas  Jefferson  sent  a  letter  on  behalf  of 
President  George  Washington  to  Chief  Justice  John  Jay 
and the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court, asking for 
advice about the Nation’s rights and obligations regarding
the  ongoing  war  in  Europe.  Washington’s  request  must 
have struck him as reasonable enough, since English sover-
eigns  regularly  sought  advice  from  their  courts.    Yet  the