A private student buys a six-month cable package to watch the televised murder trial of a defendant. The judge blocks cameras, and the student sues for an injunction to resume televising the trial, claiming a property injury from the canceled service. The trial ends before the case is resolved. The court should:

A private student buys a six-month cable package to watch the televised murder trial of a defendant. The judge blocks cameras, and the student sues for an injunction to resume televising the trial, claiming a property injury from the canceled service. The trial ends before the case is resolved. The court should:

• A. Dismiss for lack of a live case or controversy (mootness).
• B. Grant the injunction to require televising on remand.
• C. Proceed to merits because the plaintiff has a constitutional right to access.
• D. Dismiss for lack of standing.

Answer: (A)

Mootness governs whether there is a live controversy that the court can resolve. If events after a case is filed remove the plaintiff’s injury or make granting any effective relief impossible, the case must be dismissed as moot. In this scenario, the plaintiff’s injury is the ability (or inability) to watch the trial via a televised broadcast. Once the trial ends, promising an injunction to resume televising that specific trial cannot affect a past event, and there is no ongoing or imminent injury to address. Because the requested relief cannot be applied to a trial that has already concluded, there is no live controversy left for the court to resolve. The potential “capable of repetition, evading review” exception doesn’t fit here since the injury disappears with the end of the trial, and the court would not have a live case to adjudicate. Hence the proper disposition is dismissal for mootness.

Mootness governs whether there is a live controversy that the court can resolve. If events after a case is filed remove the plaintiff’s injury or make granting any effective relief impossible, the case must be dismissed as moot.

In this scenario, the plaintiff’s injury is the ability (or inability) to watch the trial via a televised broadcast. Once the trial ends, promising an injunction to resume televising that specific trial cannot affect a past event, and there is no ongoing or imminent injury to address. Because the requested relief cannot be applied to a trial that has already concluded, there is no live controversy left for the court to resolve. The potential “capable of repetition, evading review” exception doesn’t fit here since the injury disappears with the end of the trial, and the court would not have a live case to adjudicate. Hence the proper disposition is dismissal for mootness.