Court Opinion

ID: 9470393
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 03:05:00.366979+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:41:52.719613
License: Public Domain

RONEY, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent. I would remand the case to the district court for a determination of whether there continues to be a case or controversy in this case. The Women’s Commission of the University of Miami filed an amicus curiae brief stating that it considers and reviews “the policies, procedures and attitudes which affect the status of women at the University of Miami, and [makes] recommendations to improve the status of women.” Although the brief supports the appellee’s position and the conclusion of the majority'on the merits, the first point made therein is that “the action should be dismissed because this case, no longer presents a justiciable case or controversy within the meaning of Article III of the U.S. Constitution.” Following is an excerpt of the amicus brief which argues the point:
During the pendency of this appeal, the University of Miami has categorically stated that regardless of the outcome of these proceedings, Iron Arrow may not associate with the University of Miami unless it registers as a “student organization.” To be recognized as a student organization at the University, Iron Arrow must adopt a policy of nondiscrimination on the basis of sex, and therefore must admit female and male members.
As a result of this independent decision by the University of Miami, this Court can no longer accord Iron Arrow the relief it seeks in this action against the Secretary. Regardless of how this Court rules on the scope and coverage of Title IX, and even if it were to hold that consonant with Title IX Iron Arrow could return to the campus with its sex-discriminatory practices intact, Iron Arrow would be unable to do so. Therefore, this ease is now moot and should be dismissed.
Moreover, the exception to the mootness doctrine for allegedly illegal actions “capable of repetition yet evading review,” has no application here. Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v. ICC, 219 U,S. 498 [31 S.Ct. 279, 55 L.Ed. 310] (1911). This exception is limited to situations where the action under challenge is too short in duration to be fully litigated before it expires or ceases. See, e.g., First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765 [98 S.Ct. 1407, 55 L.Ed.2d 707] (1978) (restrictions on candidacy or participation in state elections); Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U.S. 393 [95 S.Ct. 553, 42 L.Ed.2d 532] (1975) (durational residency requirements); Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 [93 S.Ct. 705, 35 L.Ed.2d 147] (1973) (anti-abortion statute). In such eases there must also be a reasonable expectation that the same plaintiff would be subject to the same action again. Weinstein v. Bradford, 423 U.S. 147 [96 S.Ct. 347, 46 L.Ed.2d 350] (1975). Clearly, this is not the kind of case where there might be insufficient time for a live controversy to be fully litigated. Nor is there any reason to believe that Iron Arrow will be the subject of future action by the Secretary, because the University has independently adopted a policy in full accord with the Secretary’s position. (footnotes omitted)
*566The defendant Department of Education has likewise filed a suggestion of mootness and a motion to remand. That brief also suggests that the University of Miami may have now changed its position so that, based on its own non-discrimination policy, the University will not permit Iron Arrow to return to campus unless it agrees to admit women and that this policy applies irrespective of the Department of Education’s enforcement efforts. The Government reminds us that the initial question in this litigation was the standing of Iron Arrow to bring the suit against the federal agency. The case was initially dismissed for lack of standing. This Court reversed in light of the “unequivocal statement of the position of the University of Miami that but for the action of the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, it would not have barred and would not in the future bar the Iron Arrow Honor Society from its campus.” Iron Arrow Honor Society v. Califano, 597 F.2d 590, 591 (5th Cir.1979).
The Government today appropriately ar- , gues that a change in the University’s position would moot Iron Arrow’s grievance against the Government defendant. The brief argues:
[A]t the outset of this litigation, Iron Arrow satisfied the personal stake requirement. Iron Arrow’s inability to perform its functions on campus plainly constituted sufficient injury in fact. Although this injury was directly attributable to the University’s decision to expel Iron Arrow from campus, the University had stated that this decision was based entirely upon HEW’s threat of enforcement and that but for this threat the University would permit Iron Arrow to return to campus. In these circumstances, Iron Arrow’s injury could fairly be traced to HEW’s conduct and would likely be redressed by a favorable decision.
It then argues that if indeed Iron Arrow will not be permitted to return to campus because of the University’s non-discriminatory position, then
Iron Arrow’s injury would be attributable solely to the University’s, independent decision to keep Iron Arrow off campus, whatever position may ultimately be taken by the Department of Education. In such circumstances, Iron Arrow no longer would have a sufficient stake in the outcome of this litigation to satisfy Article III and the case should be dismissed as moot.
These arguments compel a remand to the district court to determine the present position of the University with respect to Iron Arrow’s campus activities, as determined by the Board of Trustees, and perhaps just as importantly to determine the position of the Department of Education in light of the University’s position and the Supreme Court’s decision in North Haven Board of Education v. Bell, 456 U.S. 512, 102 S.Ct. 1912, 72 L.Ed.2d 299 (1982). There is a possibility that the plaintiff and the defendants are in agreement on both the law and the facts in this lawsuit. The Government’s brief does not directly confront the merits, but suggests the following in a footnote:
Prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in North Haven, the Department took the position that University “assistance” to Iron Arrow of a nonfinancial nature was sufficient to invoke Title IX coverage under the “significant assistance” regulation. North Haven casts considerable doubt on that analysis, however, by holding that the validity of regulations promulgated under Title IX depends on “the program-specific limitation of §§ 901 and 902” (50 U.S.L.W. at 4507 [102 S.Ct. at 1926]). The lower federal courts of appeals are divided over the proper reach of the statute to wholly non-funded educational programs or activities where some federal financial assistance goes to the university. Compare Rice v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, 663 F.2d 336 (1st Cir.1981), cert. denied, [456 U.S. 928, 102 S.Ct. 1976, 72 L.Ed.2d 444] with Haffer v. Temple University, 688 F.2d 14 (3d Cir.1982), relying on Grove City v. Bell, 687 F.2d 684 (3rd Cir.1982), cert. granted, -U.S. -, 103 S.Ct. 1181, 75 L.Ed.2d 429 (1983). See also the *567well-reasoned decision in University of Richmond v. Bell, 543 F.Supp. 321 (E.D. Va.1982).
The decision by this Court only permits the Government to enforce its regulations as it interpreted them at the time of this suit, and does not require the Government to adhere to that interpretation.
Although the court’s opinion recites that Iron Arrow vigorously opposed the motion of the Government to remand for a determination of mootness, the thrust of Iron Arrow’s position was to have this Court, at the appellate level, decide issues which should first be decided by the trial court. Iron Arrow concedes that this case may now be moot, depending upon the present position of the University and the Government. It requests this Court to require the University and the Government to file pleadings on the issues in this Court, and thereafter determiné whether the case is moot.
The cases concerning the proposition that voluntary discontinuance of illegal activity does not operate to remove the case from the ambit of judicial power are conceptually inapplicable. The University is not a party and not the object of injunctive relief. The Government has not tried to render an injunction unnecessary by discontinuing illegal activity. The facts have changed so that the Government may well decide not to withhold funds, regardless of Iron Arrow’s position as to whether it can or can not, and regardless of what a federal court might order.
In sum, it appears that the Court has reached out to decide a difficult legal issue that may well have an effect on other parties in a case where it has no effect on the present parties.
On the merits, I would simply vacate our prior opinion and remand to the district court to reconsider in the light of North Haven. Assuming they are inclined to do so, the parties ought to have a full chance to litigate the facts of this case as they apply to the law in light of that decision ánd its reference to “the program-specific” limitations of § 901 and § 902. In my judgment, the record in this case simply does not permit a decision on the effect of North Haven on this ease.
I would remand to the district court for consideration of mootness, and if there is still a case or controversy, to decide the merits on the facts as they may be found in relation to the “program-specific” gloss on § 901 and § 902, and on the regulations as they may now be interpreted by the Government in the light of North Haven.