Document: 431 U.S. 119 97 S.Ct. 1709 52 L.Ed.2d 184 Jack B. KREMENS, etc., et al., Appellants,v.Kevin BARTLEY al. No. 75-1064. Argued Dec. 1, 1976. Decided May 16, 1977. Syllabus Appellees, five mentally ill individuals who were between 15 and 18 years old at the time complaint was filed, named plaintiffs in an action challenging constitutionality of a 1966 Pennsylvania statute governing voluntary admission commitment to state mental health institutions persons aged or younger. Appellees sought vindicate their constitutional rights represent class consisting all under "who have been, are, or, may be admitted committed" facilities. The provided, inter alia, that juvenile might upon parent's application, that, unlike adult, person free withdraw only with consent parent admitting him. After commencement action, regulations promulgated substantially increasing procedural safeguards afforded minors 13 older. those had become effective, notwithstanding differentiation therein juveniles less than 18, District Court certified represented by as younger been committed facilities pursuant challenged provisions. later issued decision holding provisions violative due process. In July 1976, after decision, this noted probable jurisdiction, new enacted, repealing held unconstitutional except insofar they relate retarded. Under 1976 Act 14 over voluntarily admit himself, but his parents not do so; thus subject are treated adults Act. Children still for treatment parent. Those from giving written notice. released on request, "any responsible party" petition release. Held: 1. enactment Act, which completely repealed replaced vis-a-vis appellees, clearly moots claims totally leave hospital cannot forced return unless so. Pp. 128-129. 2. material changes status included resulted preclude informed resolution class' claims. 129-133. (a) Though mootness does "inexorably" require dismissal unnamed members class, Sosna v. Iowa, 419 393, 95 553, 42 532; Franks Bowman Transportation Co., 424 747, 96 1251, 47 444, has never adopted flat rule mere fact certification district court requires merits when parties moot. 129-130. (b) Here retarded, changed materially since suit began; intervening legislation fragmented class. propriety is matter gravest doubt. Cf. Indianapolis School Comm'rs Jacobs, 420 128, 848, 43 74. 130-133. (c) Moreover, issue case respect properly one "capable repetition, yet evading review." Sosna, supra, distinguished. P. 133. 3. Since none critical factors allow adjudication present here, must remanded reconsideration definition, exclusion whose moot, substitution representatives live 133-135. 402 F.Supp. 1039, vacated remanded. Norman J. Watkins, Harrisburg, Pa., appellants Bernard G. Segal, Philadelphia, Supreme Pennsylvania, amicus curiae, special Court. David Ferleger, appellees. Mr. Justice REHNQUIST delivered opinion 1 * Bartley, Gentile, Levine, Mathews, Weand statutes age alleged then being Haverford State Hospital, facility, Mental Health Retardation 1966, Pa.Stat.Ann., tit. 50, § 4101 seq. (1969). Various officials defendants.1 2 Plaintiffs own rights, also 3 "all eighteen Hospital other statute." App. 10a-11a (complaint, P 7). 4 A three-judge United States Eastern struck down Due Process Clause Fourteenth Amendment. 1039 (1975). entered broad order requiring implementation detailed protections statutes. On December 15, 1975, granted appellants' application stay judgment March 22, we jurisdiction. 964, 1457, 731. 5 general, superseded significant degree, provides three types facility examination, treatment, care: (§§ 403), emergency (§ 405), civil 406). At here statutes,2 §§ 403, regulate statutes3 provide parent, guardian, individual standing loco parentis adults, guardian him.4 6 There two major statutory scheme affected juveniles: promulgation Procedures made little no distinction older juveniles. Each age. before Court, Department Public Welfare increased regulations, authority,5 became effective September 1973. impact regulations6 litigation stems accord older, 13. given notification telephone number counsel, right institute 406 involuntary proceeding within business days. 406,7 judicial hearing notice parties. remitted relying guardian. 7 Although sharply differentiate April 29, 1974, nonetheless following plaintiffs: 8 "This shall maintained Rule 23(b)(1) (2) Federal Rules Civil Procedure behalf comprised law (i. e., 50 P.S. 4402 4403). This definition without prejudice possibility it amended altered herein." 270a. 9 9, below enacted altering its procedures. Pa. 143. repeals declared retarded persons. 502. any essentially 201.8 children parentis. Ibid. "at notice." 206(a).9 request parent; addition, Juvenile Division Common Pleas withdrawal child modification treatment. 206(b). 10 Because concluded appellees mooted presented review, dwell length rationale Court's did satisfy II 11 presents important issues briefed argued However, reasons hereafter discussed, conclude decline adjudicate That regulations. 12 Constitutional "great gravity delicacy," see Ashwander TVA, 297 288, 345, 56 466, 482, 80 L.Ed. 688 (1936) (Brandeis, J., concurring), base our refusal pass "the policy rules often invoked 'to avoid passing prematurely questions. (such) operate "cases confessedly (the Court's) jurisdiction" . find source policy, rather purely constitutional, considerations.' " 756 n. 8, 1260, 444 (1976). A. each 14, record indicates, ill.10 essence position matters stood time, could "voluntarily" objection himself. Thus, urged required accorded hearing, well ensure validity commitment. 21a-22a, (complaint 46). (1-3) passed save appellees' mootness. controversy 402, 558, 532 (1975), apply now, below. Fusari Steinberg, 379, 533, 521 (1975); supra. Thus statute11 others ill. These concerns eradicated passage applied immediately receiving 501. essence, treats adults. They commit themselves, so, 201, 206. With below, obviated demand protections, total freedom hospital, absent consent. sense "detained incarcerated involuntarily hospitals," complaint, 21a. B 16 If us them would vacate instructions dismiss complaint. Munsingwear, 340 36, 71 104, 36 (1950). But previously indicated, certified, Fed.Rule Civ.Proc. 23, described 125-126. 17 (4, 5) particular actions presence added dimension Art. III analysis, plaintiffs' action. U.S., 399-401, S.Ct., 557-558. See Transportation, Inc., 752-757, 1258-1260; Gerstein Pugh, 103, 110-111, 11, 854, 861, 54 sufficient decide 558. Here, changed, prior certification, controverted large plaintiffs; pertaining even more We think residual originally classes Franks. obvious lack homogeneity among Analysis current various subgroups reveals bewildering lineup permutations combinations. As parse it, received claimed Constitution. Their wholly mooted, satisfied many respects admissions procedures arguably supplemented protection unclear. thereunder. respects. unaided effect reviewed unaffected latter group outset litigation. subclasses attorneys these conducted Court.12 19 just make aspect far cry indeed Franks, where adjudicated plaintiff reached fulfilled residency requirement she challenging, remained exactly same. case, inexorable change law. Title VII discrimination lawsuit, subsequently discharged nondiscriminatory reason, therefore longer employer similar metes bounds same; simply them. 20 contrast, carved up "left" unaltered. both cases, plaintiff's related factor affecting however, truncated compartmentalized legislative action; rendered moot plaintiffs.13 legislation, coupled word description. 21 (6) For foregoing reasons, doubts whether presently constituted, comports requirements 23(a).14 And "properly certified" succeed adversary representative claim becomes Com'rs 74 22 addition differences already adverted, appellant there benefit according opportunity litigate otherwise definitive stated "(g)iven turns whether, specific circumstances relationship fulfill function exists." 755-756, 1260. "evading review" element considered evaluating adequacy Id., will evade existence action" dubious, initial shortcomings multiplied. 23 sum, here. dealing merits, apt context part which, whatever original certification. While "live" disputes portions hand, appellants, other, so unfocused almost impossible. accordingly claims.15 24 remaining can decided 25 confront task remand, amiss remind same obligation "stop, look, listen" certifying court, ignored dramatic juveniles,16 and, F.Supp., 1042, sought, two: precommitment specification postcommitment hearing. 26 juveniles, recognized administrative authorities (and Legislature Act), emphasizes very possible interests Separate counsel best interest clients press automatic because such propensity pit against actually antithetical event again litigated careful attention paid young young. It Pennsylvania's experience implementing shed light issues. 27 (7) disposition full recognition importance issues, assumption earnestly seek merits. Brandeis famous concurrence 482: 28 "The convenient public promptly assailed valid, justify departure settled ." 29 And, recently observed "ripeness": 30 "All now urge 'conveyance taking' ripe adjudication. ripeness involve, least part, 'Case Controversy,' rely concessions determine Controversy' sense. Further, extent questions involve exercise restraint unnecessary bound wishes parties." Regional Rail Reorganization Cases, 102, 138, 335, 356, 320 (1974). (Footnote omitted.) 31 (8) Our analysis ability consistent long-established "formulate broader precise facts applied." Liverpool, N. Y. & S. Co. Emigration Comm'rs, 113 33, 39, 352, 355, 899 (1885). vacated, further proceedings opinion. 32 ordered. 33 BRENNAN, whom MARSHALL joins, dissenting. 34 true Terms ago another sensitive brought I "find justification straining rid itself dispute." DeFunis Odegaard, 416 312, 349, 94 1704, 1722, 40 164 (1974) (Brennan, dissenting). "Although should, course, decisions questions, should transform principles avoidance into devices sidestepping difficult cases." 350, 1722. 35 Pursuant appellee 1966. oppose day urges render "important Court." Ante, 127. Over score amici curiae organizations similarly joined presenting views us. Ordinarily defendant's failure object waives defects controversies" III, cf. O'Shea Littleton, 414 488, 494-495, 669, 675, 38 674 (1974), proceed dispute. pointedly suggest suffers constitutionally based jurisdictional deficiencies. Instead, follows different route. first told likely1 several pages parses like (1976), selected clauses phrases, thereby attempting distinguish earlier allowed reach ultimately concludes posture legal "are impossible", ante, 134, citing Accordingly, "decline(s) claims", remands clarification 37 What mean? Most importantly, class-action placed proper perspective, extended discussion cases camouflage dicta bearing case. merely continued jurisdiction subsequent said nothing about discretionary authority remand lower courts needed clarification. 128-129, irrelevant, for, if condition requires, clarify necessary permit consideration appeal warranted regardless Similarly, suggestions manner distinguishable 132, herein "not capable review," 133, meaning. power Steinberg way dependent factors, foreclosed found progeny. Indeed, clear extraneous today recognizes "case controversy" persists instance apparent plaintiffs, therefore, confirms viable. Otherwise, not, today, "decline" suit, compelled decision. While, seen, disagree warrants clarifying instance, particularly unwise hide behind language all, taken regularly ordered short paragraphs fanfare gratuitous discussion. See, e. g., Philadelphia New Jersey, 430 141, 987, 51 224 (1977); Cook Hudson, 429 165, 543, 373 39 express concern craft alone. Jurisdictional dealt complex esoteric concepts. An likely lead misapplication cost litigants dearly needlessly consume decipher construe commands. Consequently frequently voiced my recent jurisprudence areas creating obstacle course confusing standardless fathomed litigants, see, Warth Seldin, 422 490, 519-530, 2197, 2215-2221, 45 343 (1975) (BRENNAN, dissenting); 348-350, 1721-1722 dissenting), functionally aiding clear, adverse presentation presented. written, today's stir stew frustrate efforts legitimately access guidance content fundamental rights. example, deny numerous intervenors authoritative ruling reason surface plausibility. truth, purported "lack homogeneity" meaningless appeal. established minimum threshold process available across board core mandated non-waivable appointment every convening hearings specified periods,2 applies equally parental reviewing requirements, inquiry meaningful law.3 amendment, abolishing serves eliminate 20% lawsuit. Reply Brief Appellants bears pertains 80% is, parents.4 Commonwealth acknowledges "(o)ver three-fourths examined, unconstitutional, enjoined." ensures waste valuable energy. most, realistically expected confirm while reaffirming carefully 80%. understand why spare mechanical paring prevent excluding affects 755-757, 1259-1260. 41 Nor justified substituted forward suit. For, again, form. plainly recognize act premise nature actions,5 elimination ordinarily "concrete adverseness sharpens largely depends illumination questions". Baker Carr, 369 186, 204, 82 691, 703, 663 (1962). Certainly, question adequate adversity cogency argument. Attorneys continue diligently defend purview resists pressures controlling vast assortment ranging sister virtually relevant professional submitted briefs informing deliberations perspective orientation plausibly brief, assertion inability "to of" pure fancy. believe discharge institutional duty fairly, service constituencies depend guidance, issuing play wasteful games courts.6 Therefore, respectfully dissent address presented, too defer expression views, pending inevitable review initially defendant dismissed mutual agreement. 1043 (ED Pa.1975). principal sections exceed days, successive periods days each, long care observation necessary. limitation facility. id., 1054-1055, (dissenting opinion). 4, infra. purposes Hence, use words "admitted" "committed" interchangeably. provide: 402. "Voluntary admission; examination acceptance; duration "(a) Application by: "(1) Any "(2) admitted, "(b) When made, director cause made. determined need observation, he admitted. "(c) Except section 402(a)(2) younger, time. Where 402(a)(2), applicant successor "(d) annually committee, appointed staff wherein Said committee recommendations filed open inspection department secretary regulation permit. "Where sixty facility." (1969) (footnote omitted). 403. commitment; writing, signed witness. period thirty Successive applications No detained ten intention desire remove person. cared 403(a)(2), 4403 explicitly distinguishes 402(c). 403(c), relating commitment, distinction, face, either guardian) withdrawal. neither nor read containing distinction. E. 25. 201(2) Relevant set forth 1042-1043, 5. Section used 4406 201 provides: "Any believes understands submit himself act, provided voluntarily. doing deemed acting child. authorized apply." 206 inpatient unless, 203, agreed writing release delayed agreement, 72 hours. party withdrawn therefrom constituting restrictive alternative, file common pleas county resides, requesting appoint attorney minor schedule what any, minor's interest. receipt petition, minor. accordance proceedings. Nothing construed determines medically indicated. dispute administrator medical necessity Commissioner designate." notations records evaluations record: "Admission Note: Organic Brain Syndrome epilepsy" (App. 137a); "Schizophrenia" (id., 145a); "functioning average range intelligence" 167a); Weand, "dull normal 169a); intelligence, evidence bright, superior learning capacities" 175a). Given view BRENNAN suggests Post, 140-142. Implicit suggestion conclusion acceptable. approach disregards prerequisites contained 23(a), infra, pushed logical conclusions away III. Bailey Patterson, 31, 549, 550, 512 (1962) (parties "represent part"); Schlesinger Reservists Stop War, 418 208, 216, 2925, 2930, 706 (class "possess suffer injury" class). post, 142, seeks minimize asserting Even undisputed, affect test reliability figure. Before passed, irrelevant purposes; hence findings proportion category, indicate support figure, appears information supplied seeking determination form "admission interest" litigant remains quo ante overlooks substantial wrought classified basis age, illness retardation. 23(a) Prerequisites Class Action. One sue sued (1) joinder impracticable, (3) defenses typical (4) fairly adequately protect class." claims, vacation judgment, exaltation substance. rests considerations, heeded 341, concurring). dissent's startling statement insistence "purely form," Constitution vastly expanded version reading out availability thoroughly prepared argue sides question, ready assist decisional process, though "stand greyhounds slips, start," dispense question. dissent, 137, attaches great weight argues pointed text, 136, automatically entitle receive unusual alternative additional litigation; desires scarcely thought dictate result reached. reliance "numerous (who requested) 140, fewer eight legislation. Upon received, "section 406" 406, parties; indigents. gravamen 21a-23a, principally relies solely whereas consists commenced, inform members, accurate "insofar indicates," consequently fall amendment. 128. But, barely scratches regard, some supposition inaccurate presumably corrected remand. probable-cause hours detention followed complete weeks thereafter. 1049 1973, additionally places reliance, underwent attorney. Should willing take initiative, contact lawyer, whereby institution fix held. fully aware resolve infirmities inhere scheme. particular, satisfying court's guarantee nonwaivable prompt period. subdivided "a combinations", 130, significance taking account, complain, concluded, standards satisfied. children, "responsible step challenge child's filing 206(b) most party," parents, institutionalization, amounts "no real law" "additional protections." 1-2, Craig Boren, 190, 194, 451, 397 (1976); Singleton Wulff, 428 106, 117-118, 2868, 2875, 49 826 (1976) (opinion Blackmun, J.). occasions, complains position, characterizing wasteful, fails give 23. 131, 12, 134 15. contention seriously misleading. duly complied agree be. us, cannot, later, sua sponte parties, compliance Procedure, noncompliance circumstance undercut majority agreement defect found. applicable following: Does discretion through sound, Rule, objected objects continues possess law, (5) substance contentions cogently parties? plain quasi-jurisdictional includes opinion, practical considerations discretion.

Category: 8