Mainers for Fair Bear Hunting v. Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife
136 A.3d 714
| Me. | 2016Background
- Mainers for Fair Bear Hunting (MFBH) sponsored 2014 Ballot Question 1 (bear baiting/hunting/trapping); Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (Department) opposed the question and used agency resources in communications and ads beginning in 2013.
- MFBH filed suit in Superior Court (Sept. 2014) alleging the Department’s opposition campaign was an ultra vires expenditure of public funds and sought injunctive relief, removal of political content, and removal of a TV ad.
- MFBH moved for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and preliminary injunction; the Superior Court denied the TRO.
- Question 1 was defeated by voters in Nov. 2014. The Department moved to dismiss the complaint as moot; the Superior Court granted dismissal in March 2015.
- MFBH appealed the dismissal. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed dismissal as moot and declined to reach the merits, rejecting mootness exceptions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness of challenge after election | Case remains live because Department’s actions harmed MFBH and pose ongoing legislative risk | Election defeat renders relief impossible; controversy is extinguished | Case is moot: no real and substantial controversy remains; any relief would be speculative |
| Public-interest exception to mootness | Issue of agency use of public funds for political campaigns is of great public concern and warrants review | The question is agency-specific and statutory; ruling here would have limited authoritative value | Exception rejected: the dispute is narrow to the Department’s enabling statute and unlikely to provide useful precedent |
| Capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review exception | Similar agency campaigns could recur and evade full litigation before an election | Unlikely the same statutory-authority issue will imminently and repeatedly recur; future disputes may be litigable before elections | Exception rejected: no reasonable likelihood of imminent, repetitive recurrence preventing full litigation |
| Review/vacatur of Superior Court’s TRO denial | Seeks appellate review or vacatur of TRO denial to prevent prejudice | TRO denial is interim; denial does not produce final judgment for appeal; vacatur not warranted | Court declines to consider TRO merits or grant vacatur because TRO denial was not a final judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Clark v. Hancock Cty. Comm’rs, 2014 ME 33 (mootness standard for justiciability)
- Doe I v. Williams, 2013 ME 24 (mootness requires a real and substantial controversy; speculative future harms are nonjusticiable)
- United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36 (doctrine on vacatur of lower-court judgments in moot cases)
- Halfway House, Inc. v. City of Portland, 670 A.2d 1377 (Me. 1996) (three exceptions to mootness doctrine outlined)
- Campaign for Sensible Transp. v. Me. Turnpike Auth., 658 A.2d 213 (Me. 1995) (limits on public-interest mootness exception where authority is agency- and statute-specific)
- Nat’l Council on Comp. Ins. v. Superintendent of Ins., 538 A.2d 759 (Me. 1988) (capable-of-repetition-evasion inquiry focuses on duration of activity and litigability before expiration)