Document: 420 U.S. 128 95 S.Ct. 848 43 L.Ed.2d 74 The BOARD OF SCHOOL COMMISSIONERS the CITY INDIANAPOLIS et al., Petitioners,v.Jeff JACOBS al. No. 73—1347. Argued Dec. 11, 1974. Decided Feb. 18, 1975. Lila J. Young, Indianapolis, Ind., for petitioners. Craig Eldon Pinkus, respondents. PER CURIAM. 1 This action was brought in District Court by six named plaintiffs seeking to have declared unconstitutional certain regulations and rules promulgated petitioner Board enforcement of those enjoined, as well other relief no longer relevant this case.* In complaint, stated that a class pursuant Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. 23(a) (b)(2), further '(p)laintiff members are all high school students attending schools managed, controlled, maintained School Commissioners City Indianapolis.' At time brought, were or had been involved publication distribution student newspaper, they alleged actions taken its subordinates, regulations, interfered threatened interfere with newspaper violation their First Fourteenth Amendment rights. (respondents here) prevailed on merits Court, 349 F.Supp. 605 (SD Ind.1972), Appeals, one judge dissenting part, affirmed, 490 F.2d 601 (CA7 1973). Petitioners case we granted certiorari, 417 929, 94 2638, 41 232 (1974). oral argument, informed counsel petitioners graduated from Indianapolis system; these circumstances, it seems clear controversy exists between respect validity at issue. is therefore moot unless duly certified Fed.Rule 23, still present class, issue such capable repetition yet evading review. Sosna v. Iowa, 419 393, 553, 42 532 (1975). Because our view there inadequate compliance requirements Rule 23(c), concluded has become moot. 2 only formal entry made below purporting certify contained court's 'Entry Motion Permanent Injunction,' wherein court 'conclude(d) ordered' 'the remaining qualified proper representatives whose interest seek protect.' F.Supp., 611. No effort identify contemplated 23(c)(1); nor does quoted language comply requirement 23(c)(3) '(t)he judgment an under subdivision . (b)(2) shall include describe whom finds be class.' need definition purported represented especially important cases like where litigation likely initially prior exhaustion appellate never properly identified Appeals vacated remanded instructions order vacate dismiss complaint. 3 So ordered. 4 Judgment instructions. 5 Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, dissenting. 6 (1975), found mootness problem plaintiff belatedly satisfied durational residency which she sought attack. Our holding effect based upon three factors case: (1) certification suit action; (2) continuing injury suffered class; (3) factor highly probable any single individual would find his claim inevitably mooted before full course run. Applying principles case, I hold Art. III parties entitled ruling merits. 7 instituted behalf public schools. record not contain written formally certifying but absence too slender reed support mootness, particularly face incontrovertible evidence intended did, fact, take place. close second day proceedings plaintiffs' application temporary restraining order, Judge stated: 'I will make finding appropriate action, insofar concerned.'1 Later, opinion, he two who 'qualified protect.'2 605, moreover, stated, response question us, declaration action.3 findings lower court, coupled representations petitioners, provide, my view, more than ample basis first criterion met.4 8 today, however, purports distinguishable terms adequacy 23(c). A review discloses entered way 'include class,' required 23(c)(3); anything identifiable separate sense 23(c)(1). Sosna, pretrial adopted stipulation prerequisites met, numerous persons barred Iowa's having marriages dissolved; final incorporated bare reference fact being treated action. 360 1182, 1183 n. (ND Iowa If alone sufficient establish then am loss see why catalogued earlier instant case. 9 It undoubtedly true many federal district judges careless dealings actions, failed carefully technical 23. embark program scrupulous requirements, so it; end result may avoid troublesome problems sort arose both here Sosna. Elementary fairness litigants suggest, should reluctant throw respondents entirely out failure induce when clearly strictly enforced during pendency courts. And particular, suggest ought provide reasoned explanation given today difference treatment accorded appellants herein. 10 With criterion, intends enforce struck down courts flatly doing so. dispute can said some assurance desire either resurrect 'Corn Cob Curtain' distribute comparable 'underground' publication. mere statement Corn Curtain 'is existence'5 hardly deemed assurance; contrary, Board's very insistence enforceable reinforces likelihood unfettered expression continue breed clashes proposed regulations. inference is, just strong 11 Court's readiness distressing light issues stake. True, absolute (such Sosna) future over reaches conclusion; conceivable another subsequent able trap sprung unwitting parties. remitting underlying future, expeditious lawsuit, permit enforcement, indefinite period time, held facially below. allowing reimpose system restraints publications, raise serious prospect precise chilling long central concern decisions. New York Times Co. United States, 403 713, 91 2140, 29 822 (1971); Organization Better Austin Keefe, 402 415, 1575, Blount Rizzi, 400 410, 423, 27 498 Freedman Maryland, 380 51, 85 734, 13 649 (1965); Near Minnesota ex rel. Olson, 283 697, 51 625, 75 L.Ed. 1357 (1931). Any desires express views manner offensive authorities now put notice faces threat immediate suppression ideas, also arduous battle if vindicate rights free expression. Not least inhibiting knowledge efforts come naught claims circumstances beyond control. 12 consequences today's decision, unable join rush resolving * expunction respective records information compensatory punitive damages against These prayers denied proof appeal decision. Tr., Aug. 25, 1972, p. 368. immediately after discussion whether four previously could 'proper ibid.; while tentatively not, permitted names graduated. Ibid.; Respondents' complaint 'all While suggestion trial might broadened students, conceded concerned petitioners' 601, 610. concession consistent scope defined obvious intent protect' (emphasis added). problem, therefore, defining approved court. Tr. Oral Arg. 11. adverted point opinion 'plaintiffs members' bound judgment, F.2d, 603, harbored doubts proceeding 4, 5.

Category: 8