Opinion ID: 1967879
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: L.D. 500's Revision of the Bill of Secession

Text: [¶ 11] The Town and Kuiken argue that L.D. 500 violates numerous provisions of the Maine and United States Constitutions. [3] Because we conclude that their challenge to this statute has been rendered moot by subsequent legislative action, we do not reach these arguments. [¶ 12] [C]ourts should decline to decide issues which by virtue of valid and recognizable supervening circumstances have lost their controversial vitality. State v. Dhuy, 2003 ME 75, ¶ 6, 825 A.2d 336, 340 (quotation marks omitted). In the present case, subsequent to the filing of the complaint and just prior to the Superior Court's judgment, the Legislature repealed 20-A M.R.S. § 1405, thereby eliminating the only provision of state law allowing a municipality to petition for withdrawal from a school district. See P.L. 2007, ch. 240, § XXXX-12 (effective June 7, 2007). The Town and Kuiken's challenge to L.D. 500 rests upon their view that the law is unconstitutional because it eliminated the Town's ability to withdraw from M.S.A.D. 6. Because section 1405, the only state law allowing for the withdrawal of a town from a school district, has been repealed, no decision of this Court could presently afford the Town effective relief. Accordingly, the challenge to L.D. 500 is moot, and we turn to consider the separate challenge to L.D. 1.