Ryan Graham v. Attorney General, State of Georgia, 110 F.4th 1239

Georgia law (O.C.G.A. § 21-5-34.2) allows only nominees of "political parties" for Governor or Lieutenant Governor (Democratic and Republican parties) to form leadership committees with no campaign contribution limits.
The Libertarian Party, classified as a "political body," and its 2022 Lieutenant Governor nominee, Ryan Graham, are excluded from forming such committees and receiving unlimited contributions.
Graham and the Libertarian Party sued state officials, claiming violations of the First Amendment and Equal Protection Clause.
The district court denied their motion for a preliminary injunction, citing lack of standing and failure to meet relief prerequisites.
By the time of this appeal, the 2022 election had passed, and Graham lost, prompting review of whether the case was now moot.

Issue	Graham/Libertarian Party's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Exclusion from leadership committees violates First Amendment and Equal Protection	Law denies minor parties and their candidates the ability to form leadership committees and accept unlimited donations, unlike major party counterparts	Law properly distinguishes between parties based on electoral support; enforcement and relief are limited by statutory definitions	Moot—the court cannot offer meaningful relief as the 2022 election has passed
Ongoing or future harm justifies injunctive relief	Graham plans to run again; Libertarian Party needs clarity for future campaigns	No concrete allegations regarding future harm; complaint focused only on 2022 campaign	Moot—relief for future harm too speculative based on current record
Capable of repetition yet evading review exception applies	Regular Libertarian campaigns mean controversy likely to recur, making mootness inappropriate	No specific, non-speculative showing that same parties will face identical harm in future	Exception does not apply—possibility of recurrence is too theoretical

Nat’l Advert. Co. v. City of Miami, 402 F.3d 1329 (11th Cir. 2005) (mootness is jurisdictional and may be raised sua sponte)
Al Najjar v. Ashcroft, 273 F.3d 1330 (11th Cir. 2001) (explains mootness and "capable of repetition yet evading review" exception)
Bourgeois v. Peters, 387 F.3d 1303 (11th Cir. 2004) (requires live controversy for federal jurisdiction)
De La Teja v. United States, 321 F.3d 1357 (11th Cir. 2003) (case is moot when court cannot afford meaningful relief)
United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36 (1950) (disposal of cases that become moot on appeal)