Opinion ID: 2514760
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Request for a Declaratory Judgment Is Moot, but the Public Interest Exception to the Mootness Doctrine Applies.

Text: The state argues that the salmon fishers' claims do not present a current live controversy and are therefore moot because the challenged regulations were extensively amended in 2005. The salmon fishers respond that the controversy is not moot because even the newer regulations so substantially restrict the appellants' activities under their permits and leases, in the same manner as the former regulations, that the unconstitutional taking and damaging of property is ongoing. The salmon fishers also argue that even if the claims are moot, we should decide the issues under the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine. We apply our independent judgment in determining mootness because mootness is a question of law. [6] We refrain from deciding a question where the facts have rendered the legal issues moot. [7] A claim is moot if it has lost its character as a present, live controversy, [8] or if the plaintiffs would not be entitled to relief even if they were to prevail. [9] However, even when a case is moot we may decide certain issues if they fall within the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine. [10] The exception consists of three factors: (1) whether the disputed issues are capable of repetition, (2) whether the mootness doctrine, if applied, may cause review of the issues to be repeatedly circumvented, and (3) whether the issues presented are so important to the public interest as to justify overriding the mootness doctrine. [11] We have addressed mootness claims in previous challenges to board regulations. In Peninsula Marketing Ass'n v. State, [12] we held that even though a challenged regulation placing a cap on the number of chum salmon to be taken in a fishery had been amended to raise the cap, rendering questions regarding the validity of the regulation moot, we would still consider whether the statute delegating fishery management authority to the board applied to intra-commercial fishery resource allocations. [13] We reasoned that the public interest exception applied because the board could easily evade review of one of its regulations by amending it annually, and the question presented was of considerable public importance. [14] Also, in Grunert v. State [15] we held that the validity of a challenged board regulation was moot because the regulation was amended but chose to consider the issue under the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine because there would likely be a continued dispute concerning the interpretation of the amended regulation. [16] Here, as in Grunert, the challenged board regulations have been amended, which likely makes the declaratory judgment action concerning the prior regulations moot. However, as in Grunert and Peninsula Marketing, an analysis of the public interest factors reveals that it is appropriate in this case to apply the exception to the mootness doctrine and address the underlying takings issue. First, this case is capable of repetition in the form of a new suit challenging the new regulations because the salmon fishers allege that the amended regulations restrict their fishing in the same way as the prior regulations. Second, application of the mootness doctrine may cause review of the issues to be repeatedly circumvented because the board could easily evade review of the regulations by amending them annually. Finally, the issues presented are so important to the public interest as to justify overriding the mootness doctrine [17] because they involve constitutional takings claims affecting one of this state's most important industries: commercial fishing. Thus, although the 2005 amendments to the board regulations at issue may have mooted the salmon fishers' claims, we address the claims under the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine. [18]