171 A.3d 1011
Vt.2017Background
- H. Brooke Paige, a Vermont voter and 2016 presidential primary candidate, sued the State, Secretary of State James Condos, and later Senators Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, challenging whether Cruz and Rubio are "natural-born Citizens" qualified under Article II to be President.
- Paige sought (1) a declaration of the meaning of "natural-born Citizen," (2) an order requiring the Secretary of State to determine presidential candidates' qualifications, and (3) an injunction preventing the Senators’ names from appearing on Vermont’s 2016 presidential primary ballot.
- Paige moved for temporary restraining orders before and after the March 1, 2016 primary to stop ballot distribution and certification; the trial court denied those motions and later dismissed the action.
- The trial court dismissed chiefly because Paige lacked standing (his alleged injuries were generalized) and the question of presidential qualifications raised a political question for Congress.
- On appeal the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed dismissal, but on a different ground: the case became moot after the primary and general elections (neither Senator won the nomination, neither received Vermont delegates, and neither was seeking the presidency), and no mootness exception applied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing | Paige said inclusion of allegedly unqualified candidates injures him as a voter and as a presidential candidate (competition for signatures, funds, media, votes). | Defendants argued Paige’s harms were generalized/public and thus he lacked standing. | Court noted trial court held Paige lacked standing; Supreme Court affirmed dismissal on mootness grounds (did not decide standing). |
| Justiciability / Political Question | Paige sought judicial resolution of candidates’ constitutional qualifications and a court order restraining ballot placement. | Defendants argued candidate qualifications are committed to Congress and raise a nonjusticiable political question. | Trial court found political-question jurisdictional problem; Supreme Court avoided ruling on that, dismissing as moot. |
| Mootness — whether case remains justiciable after elections | Paige argued relief can still be framed prospectively (prevent future ballot placement) and that the issue is capable of repetition yet evading review. | Defendants argued the election’s completion eliminated a live controversy and relief would be purely advisory. | Court held the case is moot: election over, neither Senator seeks office, and the Court cannot grant effective relief now. |
| Mootness exceptions (capable of repetition / negative collateral consequences) | Paige claimed (1) future candidacies make repetition likely and (2) unresolved eligibility questions cause ongoing negative collateral consequences. | Defendants contended repetition was speculative and any collateral effects are generalized, not particular to Paige. | Court rejected both exceptions: Paige failed to show reasonable expectation of repetition as to him and failed to show individualized collateral consequences. |
Key Cases Cited
- Paige v. State, 195 Vt. 302, 88 A.3d 1182 (Vt. 2013) (actual controversy and continuing legally cognizable interest required for jurisdiction)
- In re S.H., 141 Vt. 278, 448 A.2d 148 (Vt. 1982) (mootness where issues no longer live or parties lack interest)
- In re Moriarty, 156 Vt. 160, 588 A.2d 1063 (Vt. 1991) (intervening events can render once-live controversy moot)
- In re P.S., 167 Vt. 63, 702 A.2d 98 (Vt. 1997) (limits on capable-of-repetition exception where future events produce different fact patterns)
- Doria v. Univ. of Vt., 156 Vt. 114, 589 A.2d 317 (Vt. 1991) (declaratory judgment not allowed absent actual controversy)
- Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (U.S. 1973) (illustrative Supreme Court application of capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review doctrine)