Court Opinion

ID: 9888851
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 19:58:21.358841+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:49:57.965084
License: Public Domain

STRAS, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I agree with the court that the case is moot, but I would follow "our normal practice" and vacate. Teague v. Cooper , 720 F.3d 973, 978 (8th Cir. 2013) (addressing a case mooted by a legislative change). This case became moot only through the "happenstance" of a statutory amendment, so there is little reason to treat it any differently than usual and every reason to "clear[ ] the path for future [ ]litigation," should it become necessary. United States v. Munsingwear, Inc. , 340 U.S. 36, 40, 71 S.Ct. 104, 95 L.Ed. 36 (1950) ; see also U.S. Bancorp Mortg. Co. v. Bonner Mall P'ship , 513 U.S. 18, 25, 115 S.Ct. 386, 130 L.Ed.2d 233 (1994) ("A party who seeks review of the merits of an adverse ruling, but is frustrated by the vagaries of circumstance, ought not in fairness be forced to acquiesce in the judgment.").