Opinion ID: 6331490
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Mootness Exception

Text: Next, we must determine whether the case falls under a mootness exception. We have recognized two exceptions to the mootness doctrine for (1) issues that are capable of repetition yet evade review, and (2) issues that raise considerations of substantial public interest which, if addressed, would prevent future litigation. Convent Corp. v. City of North Little Rock, 2021 Ark. 7, at 13, 615 S.W.3d 706, 714. We retain the choice as to whether 6 we may elect to settle an issue that is moot. Duhon v. Gravett, 302 Ark. 358, 360, 790 S.W.2d 155, 156 (1990). The second exception applies in the case before us. The two-pronged inquiry is whether (1) a substantial public interest exists in the issues being considered and (2) this court in addressing such issues, despite being otherwise moot, would prevent future litigation. Both prongs have been met in this case. We acknowledge an unquestionable substantial public interest in the health, welfare, and safety of Arkansas’s school-age children amidst the unprecedented global COVID-19 pandemic. Further, in an effort to prevent piecemeal, district-by-district litigation as Arkansas schools review their policies vis-à-vis future, emerging COVID-19 variants during this ongoing pandemic, we consider the issues presented in this appeal. Thus, we hold that the case falls squarely within the substantialpublic-interest mootness exception.