Jewish War Veterans of the United States of America, Inc. v. Gates
266 F. Supp. 3d 248
| D.D.C. | 2017Background
- A 43-foot Latin cross on Mount Soledad (San Diego) prompted Establishment Clause litigation; the federal government acquired the land under federal statute.
- Jewish War Veterans (JWV) subpoenaed documents from Representatives Issa, Bilbray, and Hunter related to the statute; the Members objected invoking the Speech or Debate Clause.
- The district court (this Court) issued a September 18, 2007 order granting in part and denying in part JWV’s motions to compel and outlining an in camera review process for privileged materials.
- The underlying case later proceeded in California federal court and on appeal; subsequent rulings and congressional legislation ultimately mooted the underlying dispute and ended further discovery.
- The Members moved under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) to vacate the 2007 discovery opinion to avoid an unreviewable adverse ruling; the Court denied vacatur after balancing equitable and public-interest considerations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether vacatur of a moot district-court opinion is appropriate | JWV: vacatur is extraordinary and not warranted; opinions valuable to public interest should remain | Reps: vacatur needed because the 2007 order could produce preclusive effects and they lacked appellate review | Denied — vacatur is extraordinary; equities/public interest do not favor vacatur |
| Preclusive vs. precedential effect of the opinion | JWV: leaving opinion preserves useful precedent for legal community | Reps: fear of collateral estoppel in future related discovery | The Court found no risk of preclusion because the underlying litigation is over; only precedential (persuasive) effect remains, which weighs against vacatur |
| Whether constitutional implications favor vacatur | Reps: constitutional questions counsel vacatur to avoid unreviewed constitutional rulings | JWV: precedent value may counsel against vacatur, especially on infrequently litigated constitutional issues | Court: constitutional-avoidance factor considered but outweighed by public-interest in preserving opinion; no bright-line rule |
| Whether mootness was caused by Representatives’ voluntary action | Reps: acted diligently and did not cause mootness | JWV: Representatives delayed producing documents, contributing to mootness | Court avoided resolving who caused mootness; found vacatur inappropriate on balance of equities regardless |
Key Cases Cited
- U.S. Bancorp Mortg. Co. v. Bonner Mall P’ship, 513 U.S. 18 (1994) (establishes principle that mootness often warrants vacatur to avoid unreviewable judgments remaining on record and frames vacatur as an equitable remedy)
- United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36 (1950) (origin of practice to vacate lower-court judgments when cases become moot pending appeal)
- Trunk v. City of San Diego, 629 F.3d 1099 (9th Cir. 2011) (underlying appellate decision addressing constitutionality of Mount Soledad cross display)
- Mahoney v. Babbitt, 113 F.3d 219 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (noting that establishment of precedent can weigh against vacatur)
- In re Executive Office of the President, 215 F.3d 20 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (district-court opinions are persuasive, not binding, outside their case; precedent value is a public-interest consideration)