# Is the case involving Johnnie Cochran before SCOTUS now moot? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [March 30, 2005, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-case-involving-johnnie-cochran-before-scotus-now-moot/296879 "2005-03-30T03:02:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![BobT](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8e8cbc/32.png) [@BobT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobT)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2005, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-case-involving-johnnie-cochran-before-scotus-now-moot/296879/1 "2005-03-30T03:02:21Z")
Last week there was a case before the Supreme Court involving now deceased attorney Johnnie Cochran. A man named Ulysses Tory had been picketing Cochran’s office and creating a nuisance and Cochran was able to get a judge to not just issue a restraining order against the man, but also prohibited the man from saying anything about Cochcran in public forever. This case made its way up to the Supreme Court since it has a potential First Amendment implications. But now that Cochran is deceased is the case moot? ---
**Author:** ![dqa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/d6d6ee/32.png) [@dqa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dqa)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2005, 6:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-case-involving-johnnie-cochran-before-scotus-now-moot/296879/2 "2005-03-30T06:20:32Z")
As they’ve already heard arguments, they’ll almost certainly rule on it. It is not uncommon for courts to rule on cases that are essentially moot, but where there is still a need to clarify the law. Whether or not it is moot for the surviving party in this case may depend on how the court order was worded. As you mentioned, he and his family were forever barred from saying anything about Cochran. But “forever” is probably newspaper shorthand for what the order actually said. I expect the court to rule against Cochran. But if they fail to throw out the order entirely, and if the order had no wording voiding it upon the death of Cochran, SCOTUS will probably punt it back to the lower court to rule on what to do now that Cochran is dead. In that case, I again predict the order will be rescinded, or terminated, or whatever is the proper legal term here. ---
**Author:** ![BobT](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8e8cbc/32.png) [@BobT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobT)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2005, 6:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-case-involving-johnnie-cochran-before-scotus-now-moot/296879/3 "2005-03-30T06:30:25Z")
The Supreme Court briefs described the ruling as a permanent injunction to keep the man from saying anything (whether or not it is defamatory) from speaking about Cochran in any public forum. ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2005, 8:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-case-involving-johnnie-cochran-before-scotus-now-moot/296879/4 "2005-03-30T08:17:29Z")
In many settings, the word _moot_ means “debatable”; as in “moot court”. ---
**Author:** ![Malodorous](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e47774/32.png) [@Malodorous](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malodorous)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2005, 10:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-case-involving-johnnie-cochran-before-scotus-now-moot/296879/5 "2005-03-30T10:15:28Z")
> [@dqa](#): > > As they’ve already heard arguments, they’ll almost certainly rule on it. It is not uncommon for courts to rule on cases that are essentially moot, but where there is still a need to clarify the law IANAL, but I thought the SCOTUS was usually pretty careful not to rule on moot cases, as it brings them one step closer to just knocking down laws willy-nilly instead of resolving actual disputes. Of course, you may be correct that this case isn’t moot, as the contract may still be binding despite Cochran’s death. > [@walloon](#): > > In many settings, the word moot means “debatable”; as in “moot court”. Yeah, my gf uses it in this sense. It’s rather confusing. ---
**Author:** ![Cliffy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/59ef9b/32.png) [@Cliffy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cliffy)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2005, 1:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-case-involving-johnnie-cochran-before-scotus-now-moot/296879/6 "2005-03-30T13:08:07Z")
> [@dqa](#): > > It is not uncommon for courts to rule on cases that are essentially moot, but where there is still a need to clarify the law. _This_ Court never does. The Rehnquist Court (and specifically, Justice Scalia) reinvigorated the justiciability doctrines and you can bet that if the case is moot, it won’t be decided. I don’t know if this is moot, though – depending on the terms of the injunction, there might be other members of Cochrane’s firm involved, for instance. –Cliffy ---
**Author:** ![JeffB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jeffb/32/188_2.png) [@JeffB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JeffB)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2005, 1:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-case-involving-johnnie-cochran-before-scotus-now-moot/296879/7 "2005-03-30T13:49:54Z")
Part of the injunction dealt with Cochran’s law firm: > [@](#): > > 1. In any public forum, including, but not limited to, the Los Angeles > Superior Court and any other place at which Cochran appears for the purpose of > practicing law: (i) picketing Cochran [or] Cochran’s law firm; (ii) displaying > signs, placards or other written or printed material about Cochran [or] > Cochran’s law firm; (iii) orally uttering statements about Cochran [or] > Cochran’s law firm; If the firm was a sole proprietorship, the case may be moot. If it is a partnership, the case may not be moot. So it moot (debatable)whether the case is moot (irrelevant). ---
**Author:** ![BarnOwl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e95f7d/32.png) [@BarnOwl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BarnOwl)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2005, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-case-involving-johnnie-cochran-before-scotus-now-moot/296879/8 "2005-03-30T14:32:17Z")
Isn’t this an important matter of Free Speech? If, for example, SCOTUS doesn’t take a position against Cochran and his firm, and the lower court ruling is allowed to stand, couldn’t \ get a court order to prevent anyone from saying anything negative about him? ---
**Author:** ![BobT](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8e8cbc/32.png) [@BobT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobT)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2005, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-case-involving-johnnie-cochran-before-scotus-now-moot/296879/9 "2005-03-30T14:42:04Z")
Yes, but I assume then the whole process would have to be started up again. ---
**Author:** ![Cliffy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/59ef9b/32.png) [@Cliffy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cliffy)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2005, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-case-involving-johnnie-cochran-before-scotus-now-moot/296879/10 "2005-03-30T15:36:11Z")
> [@Antiochus](#): > > Isn’t this an important matter of Free Speech? Doesn’t matter. The federal courts are prohibited by the Constitution (well, by the common reading of the Constitution) from issuing “advisory opinions.” Federal courts can only act when a true case is before them – they are not permitted to address topics as they choose, willy-nilly, but must address only those issues brought forth by actual cases. If one of the parties no longer has any interest in the ltigation (for instance, if he dies, and the relief sought is not something that would be of tangible value to his estate or heirs), then there is no case, and it would be unconstitutional for a court to opine on the matter, regardless of how important it is. –Cliffy ---
**Author:** ![aldiboronti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9fc348/32.png) [@aldiboronti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aldiboronti)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2005, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-case-involving-johnnie-cochran-before-scotus-now-moot/296879/11 "2005-03-30T16:02:15Z")
> [@Walloon](#): > > In many settings, the word _moot_ means “debatable”; as in “moot court”. Dictionaries give both senses of the word now, although as an Englishman _moot_ always means _debatable_ to me. I think the meaning _academic_ arose in the US within the last half-century. (No cites for that though and I could well be wrong.) ---
**Author:** ![BarnOwl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e95f7d/32.png) [@BarnOwl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BarnOwl)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2005, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-case-involving-johnnie-cochran-before-scotus-now-moot/296879/12 "2005-03-30T16:10:32Z")
> [@Cliffy](#): > > Doesn’t matter. The federal courts are prohibited by the Constitution (well, by the common reading of the Constitution) from issuing “advisory opinions.” Federal courts can only act when a true case is before them – they are not permitted to address topics as they choose, willy-nilly, but must address only those issues brought forth by actual cases. If one of the parties no longer has any interest in the ltigation (for instance, if he dies, and the relief sought is not something that would be of tangible value to his estate or heirs), then there is no case, and it would be unconstitutional for a court to opine on the matter, regardless of how important it is. > > –Cliffy Cochran’s law firm is named in the injunction. If they press for a SCOTUS ruling, what then? Might the Court refuse to rule? Suppose the Court does rule, what happens to free speech if the decision is in favor of the firm? ---
**Author:** ![Malodorous](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e47774/32.png) [@Malodorous](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malodorous)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2005, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-case-involving-johnnie-cochran-before-scotus-now-moot/296879/13 "2005-03-30T16:11:58Z")
> [@aldiboronti](#): > > Dictionaries give both senses of the word now, although as an Englishman _moot_ always means _debatable_ to me. I think the meaning _academic_ arose in the US within the last half-century. (No cites for that though and I could well be wrong.) Interesting. In the US, from my limited observation, Moot almost always means “academic” and the only people that use (or are aware of) the other deffinition are those who have studied law. ---
**Author:** ![N9IWP](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/n9iwp/32/3154_2.png) [@N9IWP](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/N9IWP)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2005, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-case-involving-johnnie-cochran-before-scotus-now-moot/296879/14 "2005-03-30T16:20:39Z")
SCOTUS reviewed the Communications Decency Act\* with there being an actual case (that is, no one was ever charged with violating it), but that was because the act itself had a provision for SCOTUS review (I think) Brian - and ruled against it 9-0 for most of it and 7-2 for parts ---
**Author:** ![ouryL](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ouryl/32/6067_2.png) [@ouryL](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ouryL)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2005, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-case-involving-johnnie-cochran-before-scotus-now-moot/296879/15 "2005-03-30T16:40:21Z")
The SCOTUS adjudicates only questions of law, never guilt or innocents of persons. ---
**Author:** ![Cliffy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/59ef9b/32.png) [@Cliffy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cliffy)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2005, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-case-involving-johnnie-cochran-before-scotus-now-moot/296879/16 "2005-03-30T17:15:29Z")
I guarantee there was a case. The first CDA case was Reno v. ACLU, IIRC. I assume the ACLU filed a declaratory judgment action. Regardless of the precice procedureal posture, federal courts don’t decide issues that do not arise within an actual case, and Congress does not have the power to waive this restriction. –Cliffy ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2005, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-case-involving-johnnie-cochran-before-scotus-now-moot/296879/17 "2005-03-30T17:52:30Z")
> [@Cliffy](#): > > I guarantee there was a case. The first CDA case was Reno v. ACLU, IIRC. I assume the ACLU filed a declaratory judgment action. Regardless of the precice procedureal posture, federal courts don’t decide issues that do not arise within an actual case, and Congress does not have the power to waive this restriction. > > –Cliffy But in First Amendment cases, justiciability is a little different. A law prohibitting certain kind of speech is said to have a “chilling effect.” Hence merely passing a statute regulating speech gives the plaintiff standing to seek a declaratory judgment or an injunction against enforcing the statute. \* See, E.g.,\* > **[New York Elder Care Lawyers | Estate Planning | Senior Law](https://www.seniorlaw.com/)** > > Elder care lawyers from the elder law firm in New York, NY practice in elder law, estate planning, estate administration & adult guardianship law. ---
**Author:** ![BobT](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8e8cbc/32.png) [@BobT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobT)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2005, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-case-involving-johnnie-cochran-before-scotus-now-moot/296879/18 "2005-03-30T18:01:31Z")
Since I’m the OP would the injunction against Mr. Tory still apply after Mr. Cochran’s death. Can you be defamed when your dead? I always thought you were pretty much fair game then. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2005, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-case-involving-johnnie-cochran-before-scotus-now-moot/296879/19 "2005-03-30T18:11:40Z")
If there is a right to an injunction against defamation, it might well survive the death of the defamed person. A cause of action for money damages does, at least in some jurisdictions. _E.g.,_ [http://www.delcode.state.de.us/title10/c037/sc01/](http://www.delcode.state.de.us/title10/c037/sc01/) If that is so, then the case is not moot at all. All that is required is a motion. > [@](#): > > 1. If a party dies after the filing of a petition for a writ of certiorari, or after the filing of a notice of appeal, the authorized representative of the deceased party may appear and, on motion, be substituted as a party. If the representative does not voluntarily become a party, any other party may suggest the death on the record and, on motion, seek an order requiring the representative to become a party within a designated time. If the representative then fails to become a party, the party so moving, if a respondent or appellee, is entitled to have the petition for a writ of certiorari or the appeal dismissed, and if a petitioner or appellant, is entitled to proceed as in any other case of nonappearance by a respondent or appellee. If the substitution of a representative of the deceased is not made within six months after the death of the party, the case shall abate. [http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/supct/35.html](http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/supct/35.html) ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2005, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-case-involving-johnnie-cochran-before-scotus-now-moot/296879/20 "2005-03-30T18:17:35Z")
> [@BobT](#): > > Since I’m the OP would the injunction against Mr. Tory still apply after Mr. Cochran’s death. Can you be defamed when your dead? I always thought you were pretty much fair game then. Good discussion of the topic. > **[FindLaw Legal Blogs - FindLaw](https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/)** > > Get the latest legal news and information, and learn more about laws that impact your everyday life by visiting FindLaw Legal Blogs. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-case-involving-johnnie-cochran-before-scotus-now-moot/296879.md?page=2)