987 F.3d 1186
8th Cir.2021Background
- South Dakota enacted HB 1094 (2019) regulating ballot-petition circulators: required detailed personal information to be filed with the secretary of state, published in a directory, and required circulators to wear badges displaying an identification number.
- Plaintiffs (SD Voice and Cory Heidelberger) challenged HB 1094 under the First Amendment and separately challenged a preexisting statute requiring petitions to be filed one year before the next general election (the "Fifth Claim").
- After a bench trial, the district court declared HB 1094 unconstitutional and permanently enjoined its enforcement, but it did not decide the Fifth Claim and denied a later request for a ruling on that claim.
- While appeals were pending, the South Dakota Legislature replaced HB 1094 with SB 180 (2020), which narrowed the definition of "petition circulator," limited registration to paid circulators, and removed the identifying number from the badge.
- Defendants appealed the injunction; Plaintiffs cross-appealed the district court's failure to decide the Fifth Claim and moved to dismiss Defendants' appeal as moot based on SB 180.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness of Defendants' appeal (HB 1094) | SB 180 replaces HB 1094 and renders the appeal moot | SB 180 is substantially similar to HB 1094 so controversy remains live | Appeal is moot; dismiss defendants' appeal |
| Whether the district-court judgment should be vacated | Vacatur not appropriate; public interest favors leaving judgment intact | Vacatur warranted because case mooted by legislative change | Deny vacatur; district-court judgment remains in place |
| Jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' cross-appeal (Fifth Claim) | District court should have resolved the Fifth Claim; appeal seeks decision on that claim | District court labeled its order as final and awarded fees, signaling finality | Cross-appeal dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction; remand for district court to decide remaining claim |
Key Cases Cited
- McCarthy v. Ozark Sch. Dist., 359 F.3d 1029 (8th Cir. 2004) (Article III case-or-controversy/mootness principles)
- Teague v. Cooper, 720 F.3d 973 (8th Cir. 2013) (amendment or repeal of statute typically moots injunctive claims)
- Smithfield Foods, Inc. v. Miller, 367 F.3d 1061 (8th Cir. 2004) (doctrine that an amended law may preserve appellate review if it disadvantages plaintiffs in the same fundamental way)
- Ne. Fla. Chapter of Assoc. Gen. Contractors v. City of Jacksonville, 508 U.S. 656 (1993) (mootness exception where amended law continues to disadvantage plaintiffs similarly)
- Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundation, Inc., 525 U.S. 182 (1999) (limits on identification requirements for petition circulators under the First Amendment)
- Moore v. Thurston, 928 F.3d 753 (8th Cir. 2019) (vacatur is equitable; consider fault and public interest)
- U.S. Bancorp Mortg. Co. v. Bonner Mall P'ship, 513 U.S. 18 (1994) (vacatur is extraordinary and not automatic)
- Riley v. Kennedy, 553 U.S. 406 (2008) (district-court labeling does not control finality for appealability)
- Ritzen Grp., Inc. v. Jackson Masonry, LLC, 140 S. Ct. 582 (2020) (defining "final decision" for purposes of appellate jurisdiction)
- Rosenstiel v. Rodriguez, 101 F.3d 1544 (8th Cir. 1996) (comparison case on sufficiently-similar amended statutes)