88 A.3d 1182
Vt.2013Background
- Plaintiff H. Brooke Paige (Vermont voter) sued to declare Barack Obama not a "natural born Citizen" and thus ineligible for the presidency, and sought to enjoin the Vermont Secretary of State from placing Obama on the ballot.
- Plaintiff defined "natural born Citizen" as someone born to two U.S. citizen parents and sought declaratory relief and injunctions in state court.
- Defendants (State of Vermont and Secretary of State James Condos) moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction (no standing/generalized grievance) and for failure to state a claim; they also argued the Secretary lacks authority to determine presidential eligibility.
- The trial court dismissed on November 14, 2012, finding Paige lacked standing as his injury was a generalized grievance; Paige appealed.
- On appeal the Vermont Supreme Court held the case moot because Obama had already been elected President and could not seek reelection, and denied both asserted mootness exceptions (capable of repetition yet evading review; negative collateral consequences).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing / Justiciability | Paige: his life, liberty, and property are injured by an ineligible president; Vermont statutes confer standing. | State: injury is generalized/speculative; no legally cognizable individualized injury. | Court: Paige lacks standing; case presents a generalized grievance and is not justiciable. |
| Mootness (ability to grant relief) | Paige: Court can still issue declaratory relief that Obama is ineligible. | State: election passed; Obama is President and cannot be reelected; no effective relief available. | Court: Case is moot; court cannot grant effective relief. |
| Exception — Capable of repetition yet evading review | Paige: future similar candidacies (e.g., repeal of 22nd Amendment or other candidates) make the issue repeatable. | State: speculative future candidates and repeal are insufficient; must be reasonable expectation the same party will face same action. | Court: Exception inapplicable—no reasonable expectation Paige will face the same litigation (Obama cannot run again; other candidates present new events). |
| Exception — Negative collateral consequences | Paige: continued consequences of an allegedly illegitimate presidency injure him. | State: alleged consequences are generalized; no specific, individualized legal disabilities or stigma shown. | Court: Exception inapplicable—Paige identifies no individualized collateral consequences; declaratory relief would not affect other authorities. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brod v. Agency of Natural Res., 936 A.2d 1286 (Vt. 2007) (standard of review for subject-matter jurisdiction)
- Chase v. State, 966 A.2d 139 (Vt. 2008) (mootness: court cannot grant effective relief renders issue moot)
- Doria v. Univ. of Vt., 589 A.2d 317 (Vt. 1991) (court must avoid advisory opinions absent justiciable controversy)
- Price v. Town of Fairlee, 26 A.3d 26 (Vt. 2011) (two-prong test for "capable of repetition yet evading review")
- In re Collette, 969 A.2d 101 (Vt. 2008) (negative collateral consequences exception requires prospect of impact on the parties)
- State v. Condrick, 477 A.2d 632 (Vt. 1984) (discussion of repetition-evading-review doctrine)