Court Opinion

ID: 9429398
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:26:38.766103+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:23:19.337744
License: Public Domain

Justice Stevens,
dissenting.
“Simply stated, a case is moot when the issues presented are no longer ‘live’ or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.” Powell v. McCormack, 395 U. S. 486, 496 (1969).1 Both the parties and the Court agree that the issues presented in this case remain “live”; the parties continue to disagree as to what the obligations are that federal law imposes upon the University of Miami. Nevertheless, the Court holds that this case is moot and directs the District Court to dismiss the case because it concludes that the parties no longer have a stake in the outcome of this litigation.2 I disagree.
*74When petitioners originally brought this suit in 1976, they claimed that the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare lacked the authority to cut off federal funds to the University because of the University’s relationship with Iron Arrow. In 1982, six years after the Secretary had notified the University of Miami that it was violating § 901(a) of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 86 Stat. 373, 20 U. S. C. § 1681(a), two years after a United States District Court had held that the University was violating the law, and one year after the Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court, the president of the University wrote a letter announcing that the University had “voluntarily” decided to make a change in the policy with respect to Iron Arrow that it had followed throughout the entire history of the University. That letter, and that letter alone, is the basis on which the Court holds that this case is moot.3 The Court’s position is that the University’s “voluntary” decision to sever its ties to Iron Arrow irrespective of the outcome of this case deprives Iron Arrow of a stake in the outcome, and hence moots the case.
It is well settled that the voluntary cessation of allegedly unlawful conduct does not moot a case in which the legality of that conduct has been placed in issue.4 The rationale for *75this rule is straightforward: “[m]ere voluntary cessation of allegedly illegal conduct does not moot a case; if it did, the courts would be compelled to leave ‘[t]he defendant. . . free to return to his old ways.’” United States v. Phosphate Export Assn., Inc., 393 U. S. 199, 203 (1968) (quoting United States v. W. T. Grant Co., 345 U. S. 629, 632 (1953)). Whenever there is a risk that the defendant will “return to his old ways,” the plaintiff continues to have a stake in the outcome — its interest in not continuing to be subjected to that risk.
I am willing to assume, as does the Court, that if this case is dismissed, there is no risk that the University will resume its relationship with Iron Arrow. But it is exactly that fact which means this case is not moot.
Petitioners claim that the reason the University has ended its relationship with Iron Arrow is the Secretary’s assertedly unlawful threat to terminate federal financial assistance to the University unless it severed its ties to Iron Arrow.5 That threat continues to hang over the University’s head, and could not help but influence the University’s reaction should an attempt be made to persuade it to reexamine its decision to end its relationship with Iron Arrow. Petitioners assert that this continuing threat injures them because it prevents the University from reexamining its decision free from the coercive threat it now faces. That injury persists; hence, this case has not been mooted.
It is true that the letter from the president states that the University will not resume its relationship with Iron Arrow irrespective of the outcome of this suit. The Court says of the University’s decision: “It is not the typical case where it could be argued that the University has taken its position only to escape the threat of an injunction.” Ante, at 72. However, it can be argued, and petitioners do argue, that the University has taken its position only to escape the threat of *76termination of funds. We have only the University’s assurance that it has made its decision voluntarily, without reference to this threat. But no such voluntary decision was made during the years preceding the Secretary’s threat, and our cases make clear that a mere assurance that the cessation of activity has been “voluntary” is insufficient when the cessation occurs in response to a coercive sanction. When a defendant ceases challenged conduct because it has been sued, its mere assurance that it will not return to its old ways is insufficient to moot the case. Quern v. Mandley, 436 U. S. 725, 733, n. 7 (1978); United States v. W. T. Grant Co., supra, at 632-633. Even if the defendant can demonstrate that it would be uneconomical for it to resume the challenged activity, the case is not mooted'. See United States v. Phosphate Export Assn., Inc., supra, at 202-204.6 Similarly, a defendant’s assurance that it discontinued the challenged activity for reasons entirely unrelated to the pendency of the suit is insufficient to moot the case. See United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Assn., 166 U. S. 290, 307-309 (1897). These principles apply to the University’s assurance regarding its relationship with Iron Arrow. The University made its decision to end its support for Iron Arrow under threat of a coercive sanction. That decision should no more suffice to moot a case than a decision made under the cloud of a lawsuit, which, after all, is nothing more than the threat of another form of coercive sanction.7
*77We cannot know what the future might hold for the relationship between the Iron Arrow Society and the University. If Iron Arrow were permitted to litigate this case to a conclusion, and if this Court were to hold that the Secretary may not threaten to terminate federal assistance to the University because of its relationship with Iron Arrow — if this threat could no longer have any influence on the University’s evaluation of the problem — the alumni membership of Iron Arrow might well be able to persuade the University to reexamine its decision. Surely our cases indicate that the University must make its decision free from any coercive influence before the case can be mooted — particularly when the successful prosecution of the litigation would end the coercion.
While I express no opinion on whether or not the University’s support of Iron Arrow did violate federal law, it is clear to me that Iron Arrow is entitled to have the question decided, and that if Iron Arrow prevails, it would then be entitled to request that the University make a fresh examination of the policy question unhampered by the threat of the termination of federal funding. If it took six years for that threat to produce the 1982 decision, it is not fanciful to suggest that the University values its relationship with Iron Arrow sufficiently that it would consider reversing its decision if the threat were removed. In short, Iron Arrow continues to have a legally cognizable stake in the outcome of this case.
I respectfully dissent.

 The Court continues to follow this test for mootness. See, e. g., Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U. S. 478, 481 (1982) (per curiam); United States Parole Comm’n v. Geraghty, 445 U. S. 388, 396 (1980).

 In taking this action, the Court does something that none of the parties ask it to do. The Government does not contend that the question of mootness is so clear that dismissal at this juncture would be appropriate; all it *74requests is that the Court remand the case to the District Court for a hearing on the question of mootness. See Brief for Federal Respondents 15-16, 18.

 While I need not, and do not question the sincerity of the University’s change of heart, it appears that petitioners do question it. The existence of a factual dispute on this point is presumably why the Government does not request that the Court simply order the case dismissed as moot, but rather that it remand the case for an evidentiary hearing. Nevertheless, the Court, without explanation, declines to follow this suggestion.

 See City of Mesquite v. Aladdin’s Castle, Inc., 455 U. S. 283, 289 (1982); Allee v. Medrano, 416 U. S. 802, 810-811 (1974); DeFunis v. Odegaard, 416 U. S. 312, 318 (1974) (per curiam); United States v. Phosphate Export Assn., Inc., 393 U. S. 199, 203 (1968); Gray v. Sanders, 372 U. S. 368, 375-376 (1963); United States v. W. T. Grant Co., 345 U. S. 629, 632 (1953); Walling v. Helmerich & Payne, 323 U. S. 37, 42-43 (1944); United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Assn., 166 U. S. 290, 309-310 (1897). See also Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U. S. 95, 100-101 (1983).

 No finding of fact has been made that this is not the case, and the Court does not purport to make such a finding.

 See also Reeves, Inc. v. Stake, 447 U. S. 429, 434, n. 7 (1980).

 The Court attempts to distinguish these cases by arguing that they only apply to defendants to lawsuits and not to nondefendants. Putting aside the fact that the University is not only a defendant, but also an indispensable party, in this lawsuit, the Court itself seems to recognize that the principles regarding voluntary cessation apply where the cessation of activity is by a third party and not a defendant. Ante, at 72 (citing St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. v. Barry, 438 U. S. 531, 537-538 (1978)). See also Phosphate Export Assn., supra, at 202-204. Moreover, the reason that the doctrine is normally applied to defendants in lawsuits is that when a defendant ceases its activity it does so under the threat of a coercive sanction. In this case, the University did just that.