893 F.3d 386
7th Cir.2018Background
- Wisconsin enacted 1997 Act 292 to bring unborn children and their mothers within juvenile-court jurisdiction when the mother "habitually lacks self-control" in substance use to a degree creating a substantial risk to the unborn child (Wis. Stat. § 48.133).
- Process: reports to child-protective agency → screening/assessment → possible UCHIPS petition → hearings and dispositional orders (including mandated treatment, random drug testing, limited custody options).
- In 2014 Loertscher, while pregnant, tested positive for methamphetamine, amphetamines, and THC; county filed a UCHIPS petition, the juvenile court ordered drug assessment/treatment, and she was briefly jailed for contempt for noncompliance before agreeing to assessment and monitoring.
- Loertscher sued state and county officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming Act 292 violated multiple constitutional provisions; the district court held § 48.133 void for vagueness and issued a statewide injunction against the statute, but entered judgment for county defendants on damages.
- While the appeal was pending, Loertscher moved out of Wisconsin with no plans to return; the Seventh Circuit concluded her claim for injunctive relief was moot, vacated the district court’s injunction, and remanded with instructions to dismiss.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Loertscher's claim for statewide injunctive relief is moot after she moved out of Wisconsin | Loertscher argued the case was capable of repetition yet evading review and thus not moot | State argued her voluntary move eliminated any live controversy because she will not be subject to Act 292 | Moot: her voluntary, apparently permanent departure removed any reasonable likelihood of recurrence, so injunctive claim is moot |
| Applicability of the "capable of repetition, yet evading review" exception | Loertscher relied on precedent and urged a broader view that she might return or others could face the law | State argued the exception requires a reasonable expectation the same party will be subject to the challenged action again; speculative return or future pregnancy/drug use is insufficient | Exception inapplicable: no reasonable expectation Loertscher will again be pregnant in Wisconsin and subject to Act 292; courts won’t presume repetition of unlawful conduct |
| Whether lower court’s vagueness holding should stand on appeal | Loertscher contended § 48.133 was unconstitutionally vague (district court found vagueness) | State sought review of injunction and vagueness ruling | Not reached on the merits: appellate court vacated the injunction as moot and remanded for dismissal, so substantive vagueness ruling was vacated |
| Whether district-court injunction should be vacated or left intact pending disposition | Loertscher argued exceptions warranted retention of injunction | State argued mootness required vacatur of district-court judgment and injunction | Vacated: because mootness resulted from plaintiff’s voluntary act, the Seventh Circuit vacated the judgment and injunction and ordered dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Camreta v. Greene, 563 U.S. 692 (2011) (case dismissed as moot where plaintiff had moved out of forum and likelihood of recurrence was negligible)
- Ortiz v. Downey, 561 F.3d 664 (7th Cir. 2009) (transfer of prisoner moots injunctive claim where no realistic possibility of return)
- Cooley v. Granholm, 291 F.3d 880 (6th Cir. 2002) (plaintiff’s relocation mooted challenge to state statute when no continuing interest)
- Lucero v. Trosch, 121 F.3d 591 (11th Cir. 1997) (plaintiff’s sale of clinic and departure from forum mooted injunctive claims)
- Lyons v. City of Los Angeles, 461 U.S. 95 (1983) (standing and injunctive-relief principles; ability to avoid future injury by conforming conduct)
- Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305 (1988) (exception applies where plaintiff’s inability to conform makes recurrence likely)
- Preiser v. Newkirk, 422 U.S. 395 (1975) (case-or-controversy requirement; mootness principles)
- Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1 (1998) (sets standard for "capable of repetition yet evading review" exception)