195 Vt. 302
Vt.2013Background
- H. Brooke Paige, a Vermont voter, sued Vermont and Secretary of State James Condos (and named Barack Obama) seeking declarations that Barack Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” and thus was ineligible to be on the presidential ballot; he also sought an injunction barring the Secretary from placing Obama on Vermont’s ballot.
- Plaintiff defined “natural born Citizen” as someone born to two U.S. citizen parents and argued Obama did not meet that definition.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under V.R.C.P. 12(b)(1) and (6), arguing plaintiff lacked standing and that the Secretary lacked authority to determine presidential eligibility.
- The superior court dismissed for lack of standing as an impermissible generalized grievance on November 14, 2012. Plaintiff timely appealed.
- After the 2012 presidential election and inauguration, the Vermont Supreme Court considered whether the appeal was moot and whether exceptions to mootness applied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the case is moot | Paige: Court can still grant declaratory relief that Obama is ineligible; controversy persists affecting his life, liberty, property | State: Election and inauguration have occurred; no relief the court can grant | Court: Case is moot; no live controversy and no effective relief available |
| Applicability of "capable of repetition yet evading review" exception | Paige: Future ineligible candidates or possible repeal of 22nd Amendment make repetition likely | State: Any future candidacy would be a new, speculative event; no reasonable expectation Paige will face same action again | Court: Exception does not apply — plaintiff cannot show reasonable expectation of repetition with respect to Obama or a concrete future event |
| Applicability of "negative collateral consequences" exception | Paige: He suffers collateral harms from an allegedly invalid presidency affecting his life/liberty/property | State: Alleged harms are generalized; no particularized, adverse legal consequences to Paige | Court: Exception does not apply — plaintiff identifies no specific, personal legal disability or stigma tying him to relief |
| Need to resolve standing and merits after mootness challenge | Paige: Standing exists under injury to life/liberty/property and under state election statutes | State: Standing lacking; court also lacks authority to grant requested relief | Court: Because case is moot, court declines to reach standing or merits and dismisses appeal as moot |
Key Cases Cited
- Brod v. Agency of Natural Res., 936 A.2d 1286 (discussing de novo review of subject-matter jurisdiction)
- Chase v. State, 966 A.2d 139 (mootness: issue is moot if court can no longer grant effective relief)
- Doria v. Univ. of Vt., 589 A.2d 317 (court may not render advisory opinions; need a justiciable controversy)
- Price v. Town of Fairlee, 26 A.3d 26 (two-prong test for "capable of repetition yet evading review")
- State v. Condrick, 477 A.2d 632 (recognizing the capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review exception)
- In re Collette, 969 A.2d 101 (collateral-consequences exception requires a sufficient prospect that decision will impact the parties)