Milwaukee Police Ass'n v. Board of Fire & Police Commissioners
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 3884
| 7th Cir. | 2013Background
- Milwaukee probation rules extend beyond LESB certification; Ramskugler lacked Milwaukee’s sixteen-month active service requirement.
- Milwaukee’s Board of Fire & Police Commissioners counters that it may set probation rules beyond LESB if authorized by Wis. Stat. § 62.50(3)(b).
- Ramskugler was terminated for not completing extended probation; the Board contends statutory protections do not apply because she hadn’t finished city probation.
- Ramskugler and the Milwaukee Police Association (MPA) sued alleging deprivation of property without due process under Wis. Stat. § 62.50(11)-(18).
- Settlement agreements partially resolved Ramskugler’s claims; Ramskugler settled, leaving only declaratory-judgment relief on the policy at issue; MPA’s standing remains at issue.
- Court dismissed the appeal for lack of standing and mootness; Ramskugler’s settlement mooted her claims, and the MPA cannot demonstrate associational standing without a live member-in-fact.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the MPA has standing to sue in its own right. | MPA seeks standing based on injuries to its members related to due-process protections. | MPA has no direct injury to itself; standing rests on member injuries. | MPA lacks organizational standing; only Ramskugler would qualify as a member-in-fact, but she is moot. |
| Whether the MPA has associational standing. | MPA could sue on behalf of its members who would have standing. | Without a live member-in-fact, associational standing fails. | Associational standing fails due to lack of ongoing live members and mootness. |
| Whether the mootness doctrine bars the case or whether an ongoing policy allows declaratory relief. | Challenge to an ongoing policy remains live despite the specific dismissal of Ramskugler. | Ongoing policy mootness exceptions do not apply; nobrooding presence or injury shown. | Case dismissed as moot; Super Tire Engineering Co. exception does not apply. |
| Whether ripeness or an alternative mootness framework affects the result. | Ripeness could sustain a declaration about policy. | Ripeness not needed; mootness suffices under the criteria. | Ripple: Court treats issue as moot; ripeness discussion acknowledged but unnecessary. |
Key Cases Cited
- Camreta v. Greene, 131 S. Ct. 2020 (2011) (stake must exist throughout litigation; not just at filing)
- Crawford v. Marion County Election Bd., 472 F.3d 949 (7th Cir. 2007) (standing in political party challenge; distinguishes organizational injury)
- North Shore Gas Co. v. EPA, 930 F.2d 1239 (7th Cir. 1991) (probabilistic benefit insufficient without injury-in-fact)
- Super Tire Eng’g Co. v. McCorkle, 416 U.S. 115 (1974) (ongoing policy can be not moot if a brooding presence exists)
- Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Servs., 528 U.S. 167 (2000) (standing must exist at the outset; time-frame mootness concept discussed)
- Del Monte Fresh Produce Co., 570 F.3d 117 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (noting mootness exception for ongoing policy challenges)
- N.Y. Civil Liberties Union v. Grandeau, 528 F.3d 122 (2d Cir. 2008) (ongoing policy challenges not moot where policy remains)
- Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363 (1982) (organizational standing foundations)