United States v. Sanchez-Gomez
138 S. Ct. 1532
SCOTUS2018Background
- Southern District of California judges adopted a districtwide policy authorizing "full restraints" (handcuffs to waist chain plus leg shackles) for most in-custody defendants at nonjury proceedings at the U.S. Marshal's request for courtroom security.
- Four defendants (Morales, Sanchez-Gomez, Patricio-Guzman, Ring) challenged both their individual restraint applications and the districtwide policy; the District Court denied relief.
- While appeals were pending in the Ninth Circuit, the four defendants’ underlying criminal cases concluded (guilty pleas or dismissal), so they were no longer in pretrial custody.
- The Ninth Circuit construed the appeals as a "functional class action" or petitions for supervisory mandamus and, relying on Gerstein and other class-action precedents, held the dispute not moot and ruled the policy unconstitutional.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether the appeals were moot and, if not, whether any exceptions (functional class, capable-of-repetition) applied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness after underlying cases end | Respondents: appeals remain justiciable because relief would affect others and the dispute challenges a continuing districtwide policy | Gov: appeals are moot; named defendants lack a continuing personal stake once released or cases end | Case is moot; federal courts require a live case-or-controversy at all stages |
| Applicability of Gerstein/class-action tolling | Respondents/Ninth Cir.: Gerstein and class-action precedents save the suit because it is a "functional class action" seeking class-like relief | Gov: Gerstein is limited to certified Rule 23 class actions; no comparable mechanism in criminal procedure | Gerstein does not create a freestanding exception outside true Rule 23 class actions or formal aggregation devices |
| Recasting appeals as supervisory mandamus to avoid mootness | Respondents/Ninth Cir.: converting to mandamus invokes appellate supervisory power and preserves justiciability | Gov: supervisory mandamus offers no blanket exemption from mootness; live controversy still required | Recasting as mandamus does not avoid mootness; supervisory writs require live disputes |
| Capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review exception | Respondents: two appellants (illegal-entry defendants) are reasonably likely to reoffend and be restrained again, so exception applies | Gov: courts will not assume future criminal conduct; expectation of repeating illegal entry insufficient because litigants can lawfully refrain | Exception does not apply; speculative or anticipated future criminality does not satisfy reasonable expectation prong |
Key Cases Cited
- Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103 (1975) (limited exception to mootness in Rule 23 class actions challenging pretrial detention)
- Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U.S. 393 (1975) (certified class acquires independent legal status; named plaintiff's later mootness does not necessarily defeat class)
- Genesis HealthCare Corp. v. Symczyk, 569 U.S. 66 (2013) (refused to extend class-action mootness rules to non-Rule 23 collective actions)
- Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc., 568 U.S. 85 (2013) (defendant cannot moot a case simply by ending unlawful conduct once sued)
- O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488 (1974) (courts generally will not presume a plaintiff will repeat criminal conduct to create a live controversy)
- Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305 (1988) (capable-of-repetition exception applied where litigant could not avoid recurrence due to incapacity)
- Turner v. Rogers, 564 U.S. 431 (2011) (capable-of-repetition exception applied where recurrence was effectively unavoidable)
- Preiser v. Newkirk, 422 U.S. 395 (1975) (case-or-controversy must exist at all stages of review)
- La Buy v. Howes Leather Co., 352 U.S. 249 (1957) (discussing supervisory mandamus and appellate supervisory authority)