Opinion ID: 794241
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Case-or-Controversy Principles

Text: 27 The rule that federal courts may not decide cases that have become moot derives from Article III's case and controversy requirement. Sierra Club v. EPA, 315 F.3d 1295, 1299 (11th Cir.2002); see also U.S. Const. art. III, § 2. `[A]n action that is moot cannot be characterized as an active case or controversy.' Al Najjar v. Ashcroft, 273 F.3d 1330, 1335 (11th Cir.2001) (citation omitted). The case-or-controversy requirement subsists through all stages of federal judicial proceedings, trial and appellate. Lewis v. Cont'l Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477, 110 S.Ct. 1249, 1253, 108 L.Ed.2d 400 (1990); accord Horton v. City of St. Augustine, 272 F.3d 1318, 1326 (11th Cir.2001). 28 Dismissal of a moot case is required because mootness is jurisdictional. Sierra Club, 315 F.3d at 1299. The `case or controversy' constraint imposes a `dual limitation' known as `justiciability' on federal courts. De La Teja v. United States, 321 F.3d 1357, 1361 (11th Cir.2003) (citations omitted). `The doctrine of justiciability prevents courts from encroaching on the powers of the elected branches of government and guarantees that courts consider only matters presented in an actual adversarial context.' Id. (citations omitted). 29 As the Supreme Court has defined the doctrine of mootness, `a case is moot when the issues presented are no longer live or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.' Id. at 1362 (citing Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 496, 89 S.Ct. 1944, 1951, 23 L.Ed.2d 491 (1969)). A case can become moot either due to a change in [factual] circumstances, or ... [due to] a change in the law. Coral Springs St. Sys., Inc. v. City of Sunrise, 371 F.3d 1320, 1328 (11th Cir.2004). If a lawsuit is mooted by subsequent developments, any decision a federal court might render on the merits of [the] case would constitute an [impermissible] advisory opinion. Nat'l Adver. Co. v. City of Miami, 402 F.3d 1329, 1332 (11th Cir.2005), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 126 S.Ct. 1318, 164 L.Ed.2d 48 (2006); see also Coral Springs, 371 F.3d at 1328. An appellate court simply does not have jurisdiction under Article III `to decide questions which have become moot by reason of intervening events.' Brooks v. Ga. State Bd. of Elections, 59 F.3d 1114, 1119 (11th Cir.1995) (citations omitted). [T]he Article III `case or controversy' requirement mandates that the case be viable at all stages of the litigation; `it is not sufficient that the controversy was live only at its inception.' Id. (citation omitted). We determine on a case-by-case basis whether a case or controversy exists. GTE Directories Publ'g Corp. v. Trimen Am., Inc., 67 F.3d 1563, 1567 (11th Cir.1995); Hendrix v. Poonai, 662 F.2d 719, 721-22 (11th Cir. 1981). 30