Michael Dunston v. Governor of the Virgin Islands
672 F. App'x 213
3rd Cir.2016Background
- In June 2016 Governor Kenneth Mapp notified Judge Michael Dunston he would be removed as Presiding Judge of the Virgin Islands Superior Court and replaced by Judge Harold Willocks.
- Dunston sued in federal district court under the Declaratory Judgment Act, alleging the removal violated local law and the federal Revised Organic Act; he sought a declaration and an injunction against removal.
- The district court entered a temporary restraining order and then a permanent injunction preventing Dunston’s removal, finding the Governor’s asserted removal authority would violate separation-of-powers principles in the Revised Organic Act.
- While the appeal was pending, the Virgin Islands Legislature enacted Act No. 7888 and the Governor approved it; the Act expressly allows the sitting Presiding Judge to serve the remainder of his six-year judicial term and states the Governor lacks authority to remove the Presiding Judge.
- Because Dunston remained in office (protected by the district court’s injunction) and is covered by the new statute, the appellate court concluded it could not grant any effectual relief to Governor Mapp and the appeal was moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Governor lawfully could remove the Presiding Judge under local law and the Revised Organic Act | Dunston: Governor lacked authority to remove Presiding Judge; removal would violate separation of powers | Mapp: Governor had authority to remove the Presiding Judge | District court enjoined removal as violative of separation-of-powers; appellate court did not reach merits because mootness intervened |
| Whether appeal is justiciable or moot after enactment of Act No. 7888 | Dunston: Act confirms he may remain and that Governor lacks removal authority, mooting appeal | Mapp: Contended the injunction was ineffectual for want of jurisdiction and thus dispute remains | Appellate court: Moot — subsequent statute and injunction leave no effectual relief to grant to Governor, so appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Khodara Envtl., Inc. ex rel. Eagle Envtl. L.P. v. Beckman, 237 F.3d 186 (3d Cir. 2001) (federal courts may adjudicate only live cases or controversies)
- Chafin v. Chafin, 133 S. Ct. 1017 (2013) (case-or-controversy requirement persists through all stages; mootness requires inability to grant any effectual relief)
- Kendall v. Russell, 572 F.3d 126 (3d Cir. 2009) (Revised Organic Act can limit local authority over judicial removal and implicates separation-of-powers concerns)