Deric Lostutter v. Commw. of Ky.
21-5476
| 6th Cir. | Oct 4, 2021Background
- Kentucky law disenfranchises persons convicted of felonies unless civil rights are restored by executive pardon; restoration is administratively initiated via the Department of Corrections and then submitted to the Governor for a partial pardon under Ky. Rev. Stat. §196.045.
- Plaintiffs (Lostutter, Langdon, Aleman) sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging the Governor’s unfettered discretion and indefinite processing time for restorations violate the First Amendment; they sought a declaratory judgment and injunction ordering a non-arbitrary restoration scheme.
- While litigation was pending, Governor Beshear issued EO 2019-003, which automatically restores voting rights upon final discharge for many—but not all—convicted felons; certain offenses (including some violent and election-related crimes and federal convictions) remain excluded and still require a partial pardon.
- After EO 2019-003, some named plaintiffs obtained restoration and were dismissed; the district court later granted summary judgment dismissing the remaining plaintiffs as moot, reasoning the EO provided the relief sought or plaintiffs had not asked for individual restoration.
- On appeal the Sixth Circuit reviewed mootness de novo, held the claims of Lostutter and Langdon (and possibly Aleman) are not moot because EO 2019-003 left the challenged discretionary scheme intact for them, and remanded for further proceedings; the court declined to decide the merits, directing the district court to address the novel constitutional issues first.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether EO 2019-003 rendered plaintiffs’ challenge to Kentucky’s discretionary restoration scheme moot | EO 2019-003 does not help plaintiffs who are excluded from automatic restoration, so claims remain live | EO 2019-003 provides the non-discretionary relief plaintiffs sought, mooting the case | Not moot for plaintiffs excluded from EO’s automatic restoration (Lostutter, Langdon; Aleman status to be clarified) |
| Whether plaintiffs’ failure to request individual restoration moots their institutional challenge | Plaintiffs sought systemic declaratory and injunctive relief; relief would still affect their legal interests because discretion remains | Plaintiffs did not seek individual relief, so the case does not affect their rights and is moot | Court rejected mootness on that basis—relief sought could still make a difference to plaintiffs’ legal interests |
| Whether appellate court should decide merits or remand | Plaintiffs asked appellate resolution of merits because district court allegedly ruled on them | State urged no interlocutory merits decision; issues are novel and should be decided first by district court | Court declined to reach merits and remanded for district court to address constitutional claims in the first instance |
Key Cases Cited
- Sullivan v. Benningfield, 920 F.3d 401 (6th Cir. 2019) (mootness reviewed de novo)
- Thompson v. DeWine, 7 F.4th 521 (6th Cir. 2021) (Article III standing and live controversy principles)
- Libertarian Party of Ohio v. Blackwell, 462 F.3d 579 (6th Cir. 2006) (mootness doctrine and live controversy requirement)
- Los Angeles County v. Davis, 440 U.S. 625 (1979) (case-or-controversy requirement and mootness)
- Cam I, Inc. v. Louisville/Jefferson Cnty. Metro Gov’t, 460 F.3d 717 (6th Cir. 2006) (standing and mootness analysis in municipal context)
- Hand v. DeSantis, 946 F.3d 1272 (11th Cir. 2020) (re-enfranchisement system changes can moot challenges when relief afforded to each plaintiff)
- Ford v. Wilder, 469 F.3d 500 (6th Cir. 2006) (relief-sought must affect legal interests to avoid mootness)
- McPherson v. Michigan High School Athletic Ass'n, Inc., 119 F.3d 453 (6th Cir. 1997) (effectual relief test for mootness)
- Chafin v. Chafin, 568 U.S. 165 (2013) (case becomes moot only when no effective relief can be granted)
- Hanrahan v. Mohr, 905 F.3d 947 (6th Cir. 2018) (policy changes can moot claims when they eliminate threatened harm)
- Banister v. Davis, 140 S. Ct. 1698 (2020) (appellate review of district court rulings including reconsideration denials)