Mullin v. Al Otro Lado · ¶180
What is more, we generally apply the voluntary-cessation exception in cases where the plaintiff argues that application of the mootness doctrine will “‘leave [t]he defendant . . . free to return to his old ways.’” Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc., 528 U. S. 167, 189 (2000) (quoting City of Mesquite v. Aladdin’s Castle, Inc., 455 U. S. 283, 289, n. 10 (1982); alterations in original). The exception thus allows a plaintiff to obtain a court’s review where there is reason to believe that the defendant’s allegedly harmful conduct will resume if the case is declared moot. See United States v. W. T. Grant Co., 345 U. S. 629, 632, n. 5 (1953). But, in the case before us now, it is only the defendant (i.e., the Government) that seeks this Court’s review of its allegedly harmful conduct. See Brief for Petitioners 3. And the Government does not need an…Read in context ›
slip opinion
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.