Document: 409 U.S. 540 93 S.Ct. 883 35 L.Ed.2d 62 INDIANA EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DIVISION et al., Appellants,v.Essie D. BURNEY. No. 71-1119. Argued Dec. 7, 1972. Decided Jan. 17, 1973. Rehearing Denied Mar. 5, See 410 970, 1435. Darrel K. Diamond, Indianapolis, Ind., for appellants. Ivan E. Bodensteiner, Valparaiso, appellee. PER CURIAM. 1 We noted probable jurisdiction in this case, 406 956, 92 2058, 32 342, to review the judgment of a three-judge district court, 347 F.Supp. 218, holding that Indiana's system administering unemployment insurance was conflict with § 303(a)(1) Social Security Act, 49 Stat. 626, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 503(a)(1).1 Before court entered its injunction, practice discontinue benefits upon determination ineligibility, taking place without benefit full hearing erstwhile beneficiary. 2 After several months effort, however, class representative litigation, Mrs. Burney, succeeded obtaining reversal initial ineligibility.2 She has now received retroactive compensation. 3 The settlement Burney's financial claim raises question whether there continues be case or controversy lawsuit. Though appellee purports represent all present and future recipients insurance, are no named representatives except who been paid. Cf. Bailey v. Patterson, 369 31, 32—33, 82 549, 550—551, 7 512. Accordingly, is vacated remanded District Court consider it become moot. 4 It so ordered. 5 Mr. Justice MARSHALL, whom BRENNAN joins, dissenting. 6 I remand ordered by pointless. only issue right recipient evidentiary before those terminated result an administrative ineligibility. evidently concludes action may moot Burney since she her claim, affected action. think clear on record us, nothing occurred at either judicial level suit would suffice class. were suspended beginning week March 23, 1971. On April 2, 1971, some three weeks sought leave intervene action,1 invoked existing Indiana appeal procedure, see Ind.Stat.Ann. 52—1542a(e) (Supp.1970), (Supp.1972), requested hearing. such July 1, while still pending Court. Although referee affirmed suspension order, December 6, Division Review Board reversed held had erroneously suspended. Meanwhile, October 27, granted summary favor 8 Certainly during pendency cannot considered indication voluntarily chosen provide henceforth pre-termination claims required under both 303(a) (1) 503(a)(1), Due Process Clause. So far appears, afforded more than post-termination which provision already made law.2 9 Nor can accept any suggestion attack appellants' failure merely because entering litigation.3 A mootness based line reasoning effectively bar final litigation legally required, leaving free continue other beneficiaries post-term termination hearings. 10 is, now, not if 'capable repetition, yet evading review.' Southern Pacific Terminal Co. ICC, 219 498, 515, 31 279, 283, 55 L.Ed. 310 (1911); Moore Ogilvie, 394 814, 816, 89 1493, 1494, 23 (1969). entirely possible will, future, employed them once became unemployed. If deemed state procedure remains intact, then encounter same problem prior encountered instance. And, inevitably, process will again completed legal relief obtained pretermination question. Indeed, sequence events might repeat itself number times mere particular sufficient required. principle federal pass does require us set motion litigious merry-go-round where, here, shortlived potentially recurring character. 11 answer whose advance therefore institute concerning timing issue. Such expected fare better, worse, terms problems mootness, case. As invariably adjudication obtained. In fact, appellants indicate speeded up significantly processed.4 12 true injunction ordering hearings, currently effect stay entered. result, hearings presently being provided Indiana.5 But certainly well established compliance order pendente lite underlying controversy, see, e.g., Bakery Sales Drivers Local Union 33 Wagshal, 333 437, 442, 68 630, 632, 792 (1948); Dakota County Glidden, 113 222, 224, 428, 429, 28 981 (1885). decision below dismissed. See, SEC Medical Committee Human Rights, 404 403, 407, 577, 579, 30 560 (1972); United States W. T. Grant Co., 345 629, 73 894, 897, 97 1303 (1953). Under circumstances, 'free return (their) old ways.' Ibid. For must 'absolutely allegedly wrongful behavior could reasonably recur.' Concentrated Phosphate Export Assn., 393 199, 203, 361, 364, 21 344 (1968). have hardly assurance—as evident from very fact taken adverse below. 13 my view, then, viable need Court.6 merits, affirm light our Goldberg Kelly, 397 254, 90 1011, 25 287 (1970). Torres New York Dept. Labor, 405 949, 1185, 228 (1972) (statement Douglas, Brennan, Marshall, JJ.). convened pursuant §§ 2281, 2284, prayer against enforcement statute, Ind.Ann.Stat. IC 22—4—17—2, grounds violated appellee's due Fourteenth Amendment. did reach temporary restraining May Presumably, payments restored outcome referee, took 13, appealed Board. Court, awarded Burney. This latter unrelated injunction. originally brought declare invalid statutory unemployed individual found initially eligible authorities his employer eligibility determination. That resolved Court's California Department Resources Development Java, 402 121, 91 1347, 666 (1971), handed down presented appeal. allowed raise further necessary where seeks suspend payment determined person receive ineligible. At time intervene, reinstating benefits. issued directing reinstated 'without prior, hearing.' chronology appears regular law provides. even product particularly bears noting supra, U.S., 123 124, S.Ct., 1349—1350, involved related n. never suggested although appellees litigation. Reply Brief Appellants 8. Appellee 6. purpose consideration identifies disputed factual issues resolution affects continuing viability claim. Johnson State Education Dept., 75, 259, 34 290. here fails identify do appear dispute developments subsequent intervention suit. competent resolve past proceeded so, 202—204, 363

Category: 8