United States v. Juvenile Male (2010)
- Docket
- 09-940
- Decided
- 2010-01-01
Summary
Question: Does the state's requirement of sexual offender registration make S.E.'s challenge to the federal requirement moot, ending his right to appeal? Conclusion: Yes. In a per curiam decision, the court held that because S.E.'s order of supervision had expired by the time of the 9th Circuit's decision, he needed to show that an appellate decision would redress some "collateral consequence of the registration conditions" or the question was moot. While a favorable decision might serve as useful precedent in a hypothetical lawsuit challenging Montana's requirement, the court held that this indirect benefit did not save this case from mootness. The court also rejected S.E.'s argument that the question was not moot because the dispute was capable of repetition and likely to evade review; as S.E. was now 21, he would never again be subjected to the special conditions of juvenile supervision. Justice Ruth B. Ginsburg, Justice Stephen G. Breyer, and Justice Sonia Sotomayor would remand the case to the Ninth Circuit for that court's consideration of mootness in the first instance. Justice Elena Kagan took no part in the decision.