John Doe 1 v. Sam Reed, 697 F.3d 1231

PMW and others sought to enjoin release of petition signer names; petitions are already publicly available online.
Referendum process in Washington requires filing petitions with signatures, printed names, and addresses with the Secretary of State.
PMW submitted signed petitions in July 2009 to referendum Senate Bill 5688; district court issued a temporary restraining order.
District court ultimately granted summary judgment on mootness; petitions were released by the State.
Petitions are now accessible on the internet in original and searchable form; appellate panel concluded no live controversy remains.
The Court treated the issue as moot because no effective relief could be granted, with no mootness exception applying.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is the case moot, given petitions are publicly available?	PMW argues ongoing relief is possible to prevent further disclosure.	Washington argues no live controversy remains and no effective relief is available.	Yes, moot; no effective relief possible.
Does any mootness exception apply to preserve review?	There is a reasonable expectation of repetition with ongoing disclosure to the public.	The controversy is not inherently limited in duration and not likely to evade review.	No; exception not satisfied.
Do the named Plaintiffs have standing to challenge the disclosure?	Plaintiffs allege injury from compelled disclosure burdening speech.	Standing exists because plaintiffs suffer a cognizable injury and redress could occur by halting further disclosure.	Yes; standing found.
Merits of the as-applied First Amendment challenge if not moot	Disclosure burdens associational rights via ongoing disclosure and potential retaliation.	State interest in preventing fraud and protecting election integrity is substantial and related to disclosure.	As-applied challenge fails; government interest outweighs burden; no viable remedy.

Doe v. Reed, 130 S. Ct. 2811 (2010) (Supreme Court decision addressing disclosure of referendum petition signatures (reaffirming burden on speech))
Feldman v. Bomar, 518 F.3d 637 (9th Cir. 2008) (mootness; continued harm and remedy considerations)
In re Grand Jury Investigation No. 78-184, 642 F.2d 1184 (9th Cir. 1981) (not moot where continued access to materials can cause ongoing injury; partial relief possible)
Church of Scientology of California v. United States, 506 U.S. 9 (Supreme Court, 1992) (not moot if partial relief can be fashioned to protect privacy interests)
Sells Eng’g, Inc. (United States v. Sells Eng’g), 463 U.S. 418 (1983) (continued disclosure to third parties can sustain a remedy)
United States v. Smith, 123 F.3d 140 (3d Cir. 1997) (mootness where continued disclosure to third parties cannot be undone)
Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007) (remedial relief can slow or reduce the problem even if not wholly preventable)