Opinion ID: 3153543
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Mootness Standard

Text: “Article III of the United States Constitution limits the jurisdiction of federal courts to the adjudication of ‘Cases’ or ‘Controversies.’” Jordan v. Sosa, 654 F.3d 1012, 1019 (10th Cir. 2011) (quoting U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1). This case-or-controversy limitation requires that parties continue to have a personal stake in the outcome of a lawsuit during all stages of litigation, including appellate review. See United States v. Juvenile Male, 131 S. Ct. 2860, 2864 (2011); Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998); S. Utah Wilderness All. v. Smith, 110 F.3d 724, 727 (10th Cir. 1997) (“Article III mootness is ‘the doctrine of standing set in a time frame: The requisite personal interest that must exist at the commencement of the litigation (standing) must continue throughout its existence (mootness).’” (quoting Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 68 n.22 (1997))). “We have held a case or controversy no longer exists when it is impossible to grant any effectual relief.” Chihuahuan Grasslands All. v. Kempthorne, 545 F.3d 884, - 12 - 891 (10th Cir. 2008); see also S. Utah Wilderness All., 110 F.3d at 727 (“[T]o be cognizable, a suit must be ‘a real and specific controversy admitting of specific relief through a decree of a conclusive character.’” (quoting Preiser v. Newkirk, 422 U.S. 395, 401 (1975))). A claim is moot if a party has already obtained the only relief it seeks. See S. Utah Wilderness All., 110 F.3d at 727 (affirming district court’s finding that case was moot where “the only relief sought . . . has already been obtained”).