Is the case involving Johnnie Cochran before SCOTUS now moot?

[Gfactor]

@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.

Another thought. The injunction does not merely prohibit defamation. It prohibits specific words and conduct, and it covers others besides Johnny C. Based on that, I’d say it till applies. Even the provisions that cover Tory disparaging Cochran might still apply. There are other grounds for such an injunction besides plain old defamation. For example, trade disparagement and interference with contractual relations. I have not seen the actual injunction, so it is hard to be sure.

[Northern_Piper]

@Gfactor

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.

Sure, but there is still a case or controversy there: an individual is claiming that an law has an unconstitutional effect on him or her personally.

[Gfactor]

@Northern Piper

Sure, but there is still a case or controversy there: an individual is claiming that an law has an unconstitutional effect on him or her personally.

That’s why I said justiciability is “different” in that case. There are no exceptions to Article III’s case or controversy requirement.

[BobT]

Here is a link to a Slate.com “Explainer” column:

Defaming Johnnie Cochran.

[dqa]

Today’s ruling:

Held: Cochran’s widow is substituted as respondent, but the case is not moot. Despite Cochran’s death, the injunction remains in effect. Nothing in its language says to the contrary. Cochran’s counsel argues that the injunction is still necessary, valid, and enforceable, and no source of California law says that it automatically became invalid upon Cochran’s death. As this Court understands that law, a person cannot definitively know whether an injunction is legally void until a court has ruled that it is. Given this uncertainty, the injunction here continues significantly to restrain petitioners’ speech, thus presenting an ongoing federal controversy. Cochran’s death, however, makes it unnecessary for this Court to explore petitioners’ basic claims. Rather, the Court need only point out that the injunction, as written, has lost its underlying rationale. Since picketing Cochran and his law offices while engaging in injunction-forbidden speech could no longer coerce Cochran to pay for desisting in this activity, the grounds for the injunction are much diminished or have disappeared altogether. Consequently the injunction amounts to an overly broad prior restraint upon speech, lacking plausible justification. Pp. 2—4.

[Excalibre]

@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

I know this is something I’ve been taught, but what’s the provision that permits them to decide cases that are now moot? I’m thinking particularly of abortion - cases involving abortion that rise to the Supreme Court are certainly moot before the decision, given the length of the process. Yet the Court still decides them. What’s the basis for this power? Does it only work in matters of law where a relevant case couldn’t possibly remain ripe for long enough to work through the court system?

[Gfactor]

@Excalibre

I know this is something I’ve been taught, but what’s the provision that permits them to decide cases that are now moot? I’m thinking particularly of abortion - cases involving abortion that rise to the Supreme Court are certainly moot before the decision, given the length of the process. Yet the Court still decides them. What’s the basis for this power? Does it only work in matters of law where a relevant case couldn’t possibly remain ripe for long enough to work through the court system?

Discussion of exceptions to the mootness doctrine

A quick summary:

1. Collateral legal consequences
2. Voluntary cessation if the conduct is likely to recur
3. Capable of repetition, yet evading review (Like Roe v. Wade)
4. Class actions where the plaintiff’s case is moot, but class memebers’ cases are not.

Though in this case, none of the Justices flat out said that the case was moot. Breyer said it wasn’t, and the dissent said, “Whether or not Johnnie Cochran’s death moots this case, it certainly renders the case an inappropriate vehicle for resolving the question presented.” TORY V. COCHRAN Thomas’s reasoning here is a little artificial. The Court already heard the argument, they have the record. They have only to render an opinion. Of course, if they were to remand for a new trial or some such, then he has a point.

[Gfactor]

memebers’ = members’ :smack: