11-1085 Stone v. Board of Election Commissioners for the City of Chicago

Listen to this article

Civil Procedure
Mootness

An action seeking an injunction pertaining to an election that has already occurred is moot.

“’[F]ederal courts are without power to decide questions that cannot affect the rights of litigants in the case before them.’ North Carolina v. Rice, 404 U.S. 244, 246 (1971) (per curiam). If an event occurs during appeal that eliminates the court’s power to provide relief, the appeal is moot. Dorel Juvenile Grp., Inc. v. DiMartinis, 495 F.3d 500, 503 (7th Cir. 2007). The only relief Plaintiffs seek from us is an injunction pertaining to the municipal election on February 22, 2011. That election has passed, the requirement was enforced, and the requested injunction is now worthless. Perhaps if Plaintiffs had sought an injunction forcing a new election, we would have jurisdiction. See Stewart v. Taylor, 104 F.3d 965, 970 (7th Cir. 1997) (holding the appeal of a denial of a preliminary injunction not moot because ‘if we find merit in [plaintiff’s] claim, we could order a new election’). But Plaintiffs seek no such remedy, and the injunction they do seek could no longer affect the litigants’ rights.”

Dismissed.

11-1085 Stone v. Board of Election Commissioners for the City of Chicago

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Dow, J., Kanne, J.

Full Text