Opinion ID: 205987
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Vacatur of the District Court's Decision

Text: In United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36, 40, 71 S.Ct. 104, 95 L.Ed. 36 (1950), the Supreme Court noted that vacatur is normally appropriate once a case is determined to be moot, because it clears the path for future relitigation of the issues between the parties and eliminates a judgment, review of which was prevented through happenstance. Thus, in a matter such as this, in which intervening legislation alters the posture of a pending case, the Court has held that it is the duty of the appellate court to vacate the judgment of the district court and dismiss the case as moot. Galioto, 477 U.S. at 559-60, 106 S.Ct. 2683. The Supreme Court later clarified that vacatur is an equitable matter and not automatic in all situations in which a pending case is rendered moot. U.S. Bancorp Mortg. Co. v. Bonner Mall P'ship, 513 U.S. 18, 23-25, 115 S.Ct. 386, 130 L.Ed.2d 233 (1994). Bancorp indicates that vacatur is usually inappropriate when the party seeking relief from the judgment below caused the mootness by voluntary action. Id. at 24, 115 S.Ct. 386. The Bancorp presumption is inapposite here because the FTC  the party who would get relief from the judgment below  did nothing to render this case moot. The case is moot because of the congressional enactment of the new Clarification Act. Furthermore, we have held that the Bancorp presumption rarely applies in situations when, as here, a case is rendered moot by intervening legislation. Clearly, the passage of new legislation represents voluntary action, and thus on its face the Bancorp presumption might seem to govern. We believe, however, that application of the Bancorp presumption in this context is not required by the Bancorp opinion's rationale and would be inappropriate, at least if there is no evidence indicating that the legislation was enacted in order to overturn an unfavorable precedent. The rationale underlying the Bancorp presumption is that litigants should not be able to manipulate the judicial system by rolling the dice in the district court and then washing away any unfavorable outcome through use of settlement and vacatur. The mere fact that a legislature has enacted legislation that moots an appeal, without more, provides no grounds for assuming that the legislature was motivated by such a manipulative purpose. The legislature may act out of reasons totally independent of the pending lawsuit, or because the lawsuit has convinced it that the existing law is flawed. In American Library Association v. Barr, 956 F.2d 1178 (D.C.Cir.1992), we rejected the argument that vacatur was not appropriate where a case had become moot on appeal due to Congress' passage of new legislation, arguing that Congress' action to repair what may have been a constitutionally defective statute ... represents responsible lawmaking, not manipulation of the judicial process. Id. at 1187. .... The presumption of integrity that attaches to legislative action and the difficulties that separation of powers creates for attributing one branch's actions to another support not applying the Bancorp rule to situations where the party seeking vacatur is the government and mootness results on appeal because of legislative action. In this context, absent additional evidence of an illegitimate motive, we believe the general rule in favor of vacatur still applies. Nat'l Black Police Ass'n, 108 F.3d at 351-52, 354 (citations, quotations, ellipsis, and brackets omitted). National Black Police Ass'n directly controls the disposition of this case on the matter of vacatur. We therefore adhere to the law of the circuit in our decision to vacate the judgment of the District Court.