Court Opinion

ID: 9582846
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:31:57.469682+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:38:38.177853
License: Public Domain

Judge Walker
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion in that I believe this case has been rendered moot by the USDA amending its regulations to eliminate the postponement period declared invalid in Anderson I. This case does not fit into the exception to the mootness doctrine that allows for review when a defendant voluntarily ceases illegal conduct during the pendency of an appeal, as defendant NCDHR did not voluntarily cease its refusal to apply Anderson I. By amending its regulations, the USDA mandated that defendant NCDHR uniformly apply Anderson I, and defendant NCDHR was required to obey this mandate according to 7 U.S.C.A. § 2014(b) (1988), which declares that state eligibility standards must be consistent with federal eligibility standards. In addition, defendant NCDHR’s failure to apply Anderson I between 20 April 1993 and 1 February 1996 cannot be said to amount to illegal conduct. The USDA did not amend its regulations until 1 February 1996, and up to that *713time, defendant NCDHR was simply enforcing its regulations in the absence of further directives from the USDA.
This case also does not fit into the “capable of repetition, yet evading review” exception to the mootness doctrine. This exception applies if “(1) the challenged action [is] in its duration too short to be fully litigated prior to its cessation or expiration, and (2) there [is] a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party would be subjected to the same action again.” Crumpler v. Thornburg, 92 N.C. App. 719, 723, 375 S.E.2d 708, 711, disc. review denied, 324 N.C. 543, 380 S.E.2d 770 (1989) (citations omitted). Because the USDA amended its regulations to eliminate the postponement period complained of in Anderson I, defendant NCDHR is bound to follow USDA regulations and is not “free to return to [its] old ways.” United States v. W.T. Grant Co., 345 U.S. 629, 632, 97 L. Ed. 2d 1303, 1309 (1953). It is therefore unlikely that plaintiff will be subjected to the same action again.
Finally, plaintiffs concern regarding defendant NCDHR’s proposed compensation plan is premature. As the majority states, any member of the class affected by the compensation plan retains the right to pursue their claim administratively before defendant NCDHR if that member’s rights are prejudiced.
For the above reasons, I believe this appeal should be dismissed as moot.