TIMOTHY O. BEPPLER and KATHRYN L. BEPPLER, individually and on behalf of their minor grandchildren; NATHAN PRETE, individually and on behalf of his minor children; and TIFFANY ESKELSON-MAESTAS, individually and on behalf of her minor children, Appellants (Plaintiffs), v. UINTA COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT NUMBER ONE, STATE OF WYOMING, a body corporate, Appellee (Defendant).
S-20-0140
IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING
December 16, 2020
2020 WY 149
OCTOBER TERM, A.D. 2020
Representing Appellants: Michael A. Rollin, Foster Graham Milstein & Calisher, LLP, Denver, Colorado; Sharon M. Rose, The Rose Law Firm, P.C., Evanston, Wyoming. Argument by Mr. Rollin.
Representing Appellee: Geoffrey J. Phillips, Phillips Law, LLC, Evanston, Wyoming. Argument by Mr. Phillips.
Before DAVIS, C.J., and FOX, KAUTZ, BOOMGAARDEN, and GRAY, JJ.
[¶1] Parents and grandparents of students in the Uinta County School District Number One filed this lawsuit to challenge a rule adopted by the School District that permitted school personnel to carry firearms on school property. They alleged the rule (“Rule CKA“) violated the Wyoming Constitution, did not comply with the enabling statute, and was not adopted in compliance with the Wyoming Administrative Procedure Act. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the parents and grandparents on their count alleging violation of the enabling statute, and granted the School District‘s motions to dismiss or for summary judgment on the remaining three counts. The parents and grandparents appeal. We conclude the district court‘s order invalidating Rule CKA renders all other issues moot, and we remand for entry of a final order and dismissal of the remaining claims.
ISSUE
[¶2] Did the summary judgment order invalidating the rule render this appeal moot?
FACTS
[¶3] The 2017 Wyoming Legislature enacted a law authorizing school districts to adopt
rules “to allow the possession of firearms by employees possessing a valid concealed
carry permit . . . on or in” school property.
[¶4] Appellants Timothy O. Beppler and Kathryn L. Beppler, as grandparents of
children attending school in the School District; Nathan Prete, as the parent of children
attending school in the School District; and Tiffany Eskelson-Maestas, as the parent of
children attending school in the School District, filed their Complaint for Declaratory
Judgment and Injunctive Relief August 26, 2019. In Count I, they sought declaratory
judgment that Rule CKA violated the Wyoming Constitution and should be set aside
pursuant to
- December 3, 2019 Order dismissing Counts III and IV for lack of jurisdiction, finding that those claims should have been filed as petitions for review of administrative action and not declaratory judgment actions. The district court denied the School District‘s motions to dismiss or for summary judgment on Count I (violation of constitution) and Count II (failure to comply with statutory requirement for instructor qualifications).
- April 24, 2020 Order granting plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, finding Rule CKA is invalid because the rule fails to follow the statute requiring establishment of instructor qualifications.
- April 24, 2020 Order dismissing Count I of the Complaint, finding that Appellants failed to state a claim of equal protection or substantive due process violations.
[¶5] The parents and grandparents appeal the dismissal of Counts I, III, and IV on various grounds. The School District did not appeal the district court‘s order finding Rule CKA was invalid.
DISCUSSION
[¶6] The parties have not raised mootness; however, the “doctrine [of mootness] represents the time element of standing.” Operation Save Am. v. City of Jackson, 2012 WY 51, ¶ 21, 275 P.3d 438, 448 (Wyo. 2012). “[B]ecause standing is a ‘vital jurisprudential’ rule, a ‘court may still, and should, raise standing issues sua sponte when the parties do not.‘” Williams v. State ex rel. Univ. of Wyo. Bd. of Trs., 2019 WY 90, ¶ 7, 448 P.3d 222, 226 (Wyo. 2019) (quoting In re L-MHB, 2018 WY 140, ¶ 24, 431 P.3d 560, 568 (Wyo. 2018)).
[¶7] Appellants have, perhaps inadvertently, made a strong argument for mootness.
They contend W.R.C.P. 52(d) prohibited the district court‘s consideration of the
constitutional claim because the order invalidating Rule CKA for failure to establish
instructor qualifications “operates ab initio, requiring Appellee to restart the rulemaking
[¶8] At oral argument, counsel for the Appellants suggested this Court apply the exception to the mootness doctrine for controversies capable of repetition yet evading review. That exception requires two elements: (1) “the duration of the challenged action must be too short for completion of litigation prior to its cessation or expiration,” and (2) “there must be a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party will be subjected to the same action again.” Id. at ¶ 13, 473 P.3d at 298 (quoting Operation Save Am., 2012 WY 51, ¶ 30, 275 P.3d at 450). It is likely that the same complaining parties will be subject to the same action by the School District again, but the duration of that action will not be too short for completion of litigation before its cessation. The School District may restart rulemaking; and these parents and grandparents will have a full opportunity to challenge any new rule.
[¶9] Nor does the “great public importance” exception to mootness apply. We recognize that Appellants raise questions of constitutional magnitude, which may be of great public importance. See Powder River Basin, 2020 WY 127, ¶ 16, 473 P.3d at 298. However, we decline to address the constitutionality of a rule that is subject to revision and renewed challenges which will, in all likelihood, offer us an opportunity to consider the constitutionality of the rule in its most recent form.1
[¶10] A decision by the Court on the issues raised in this appeal would be purely advisory. There were no live issues remaining to be litigated when the district court entered its order invalidating Rule CKA, and it should have dismissed the other claims.