Yarls v. Bunton, 905 F.3d 905

In 2015 funding shortfalls prompted Orleans Public Defender (OPD) and other Louisiana districts to adopt "Restriction of Services" protocols that placed indigent non-capital arrestees on waitlists for appointed counsel.
Appellants (Yarls, Shaw, Brown) were placed on OPD waitlists, detained for months without counsel, and sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment violations.
The district court dismissed the suit (citing Younger abstention and justiciability); plaintiffs sought relief from judgment and appealed.
While this appeal was pending, the Louisiana Legislature reallocated $5 million to indigent defense, and the State Public Defender reported that non-capital waitlists had been eliminated.
All parties acknowledged there are currently no waitlists for non-capital defendants; appellees did not oppose plaintiffs’ requested relief and joined in the view that waitlists were unconstitutional.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Article III standing / mootness	Waitlists caused concrete injury (prolonged detention without counsel); relief remains necessary	Waitlists have been eliminated by legislative funding; no live controversy	Moot — case dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because waitlists no longer exist
Voluntary cessation / defendant‑induced mootness	Elimination of waitlists could be litigation-driven and reversible	Governmental funding change and OPD concurrence show bona fide cessation; presume good faith	No defendant‑induced mootness concern here; presumption of government good faith applies
"Capable of repetition, yet evading review" exception	Funding instability means waitlists likely to recur; exception should apply	Plaintiffs lack reasonable expectation of being re‑subjected to waitlist (would require new criminal conduct/arrest)	Exception not met — no reasonable expectation the same plaintiffs will face same injury again
Justiciability / adverseness of relief	Immediate declaratory and injunctive relief warranted to protect class rights	Parties largely agree on facts and unconstitutionality; absence of ongoing injury defeats meaningful relief	Court declined to reach merits; lack of a live, adverse controversy forecloses relief

Walker v. DOT, 817 So.2d 57 (La. 2002) (Louisiana treats ethical rules as having force of law)
Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971) (federal courts generally abstain from interfering with ongoing state criminal proceedings)
Hosein v. Gonzales, 452 F.3d 401 (5th Cir. 2006) (standing analysis)
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (Article III injury‑in‑fact requirements)
Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc., 568 U.S. 85 (2013) (mootness and meaningful relief)
Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962) (case-or-controversy and political question principles)
City of Mesquite v. Aladdin's Castle, Inc., 455 U.S. 283 (1982) (mootness and adverse parties requirement)
Fontenot v. McCraw, 777 F.3d 741 (5th Cir. 2015) (mootness where no live controversy remains)
Sossamon v. Lone Star State of Tex., 560 F.3d 316 (5th Cir. 2009) (government cessation and good‑faith presumption)