Document: 471 U.S. 148 105 S.Ct. 1820 85 L.Ed.2d 114 Bill HONIG, Superintendent of Public Instruction California, et al.v.STUDENTS OF the CALIFORNIA SCHOOL FOR THE BLIND al. No. 84-436. April 1, 1985. PER CURIAM. 1 Respondents, students California School for Blind, brought this lawsuit in Federal District Court against petitioner state officials, claiming among other things that school's physical plant did not meet applicable seismic safety standards. Their complaint alleged rights action under Education All Handicapped Children Act 1975, 89 Stat. 773, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1232, 1401, 1405, 1406, 1411-1420, 1453, and § 504 Rehabilitation 1973, 87 394, as amended, 29 794. After a lengthy trial issued "preliminary injunction" requiring State to conduct additional tests school grounds aid assessment safety. Petitioners appealed United States Appeals Ninth Circuit pursuant 28 1292(a)(1). That court affirmed issuance preliminary injunction on ground lower had abused its discretion. 736 F.2d 538 (1984). The expressly noted it was finally deciding merits action, but only assessing Court's reasoning determine whether appropriately applied traditional calculus granting or denying injunctions. Id., at 542-543, 546-547, 550. 2 have petitioned writ certiorari review judgment Circuit, meantime ordered by been completed. We therefore are confronted with situation nearly identical addressed University Texas v. Camenisch, 451 390, 101 1830, 68 175 (1981), which petitioners completely complied terms time case reached Court. In Camenisch we concluded "the question should here is moot, because . fully irrevocably carried out." 398, S.Ct., 1835. Because aspect however, merely vacated Appeals, remanded further proceedings. Ibid. Here, law actually ruled discretion applying complicated determining issued, an issue now moot. No order could affect parties' respect called upon review. Other claims relief, still remain be resolved accordingly grant petition certiorari, vacate instructions remand proceedings consistent opinion. 3 Justice POWELL took no part consideration decision case. 4 MARSHALL, whom BRENNAN STEVENS join, dissenting. 5 Although I agree majority such moot if full burden imposed has passed, all clear here. If facts making occurred subsequent decision, so do appear record. makes quite distinct from where mootness raised, argued, decided Appeals. instant case, received papers parties than response. those papers, neither party assured factual premises fulfilled, nor agreed Since requested any supplemental information argument parties, without understanding their precise legal implications parties. cannot accept can simply assume, matter, exists. inform our suspicion allow briefing issue. Absent procedure, dissent. 6 Mootness mentioned twice before First, argue spite fact "by considers petition, officials may well already injunction. ." Pet. Cert. 17. Leaving aside arguments compliance would render statement hardly sufficient there compliance. 7 This theme repeated respondents' opposition. Respondents assert completed "and final report likelihood will determines present petition." Brief Opposition 14 (emphasis added). opposition goes assure "should court's experts indicate, find, Fremont site seismically safe, live whatsoever between case." 15 original). respondents vigorously argued once certain events occur become they stopped conspicuously short assuring occurred. Indeed, instead "will [the] hear issues presented." 10. 8 support opposition, attached filing letter written consulting geologist who presumably doing work requires done. letter, like pleadings, stops informing completion done Dated November 27, 1984, states aerial photographs next 45 days," draft investigators December" followed mid-January," geologists' submitted about 60 days later." App. 1-2. 9 last filed December 7, that, discussed above, went predict following months view. described, yet understood duty counsel call [as suggest mootness] [this Court's] attention," R. Stern & E. Gressman, Supreme Practice 896 (5th ed. 1978), nothing since. 10 believe end near safely assumed, future hold surprises A prerequisite disposing complex one prior disposition informed asked provide arguments. done,

Category: 8