A student pays for cable television to view a defendant’s murder trial. The judge halts televising the trial. After the trial ends, the student sues for an injunction to resume televising. The case becomes moot. What is the proper disposition?

A student pays for cable television to view a defendant’s murder trial. The judge halts televising the trial. After the trial ends, the student sues for an injunction to resume televising. The case becomes moot. What is the proper disposition?

• A. Grant relief to compensate the student for the loss of viewing time.
• B. Deny relief because the case is moot and there is no ongoing controversy.
• C. Remand to determine if the issue could be revived on appeal.
• D. Deny on the merits because the judge had discretion to control proceedings.

Answer: (B)

Mootness is the central idea. A case must present a live, redressable controversy for the court to decide. Here, the trial has ended and there’s no ongoing proceeding to televise or injunction to issue that would affect the present situation. The student’s injury—being unable to watch a specific trial—cannot be remedied by ordering broadcasting to resume after the fact, so there is no relief the court can grant that would affect the dispute. Because the controversy is no longer live, the proper disposition is to deny relief on mootness grounds. If the issue were capable of repetition and evading review, there could be an exception, but that doesn’t fit this single-trial scenario.

Mootness is the central idea. A case must present a live, redressable controversy for the court to decide. Here, the trial has ended and there’s no ongoing proceeding to televise or injunction to issue that would affect the present situation. The student’s injury—being unable to watch a specific trial—cannot be remedied by ordering broadcasting to resume after the fact, so there is no relief the court can grant that would affect the dispute. Because the controversy is no longer live, the proper disposition is to deny relief on mootness grounds. If the issue were capable of repetition and evading review, there could be an exception, but that doesn’t fit this single-trial scenario.