A plaintiff files a lawsuit seeking an injunction to stop a city from enforcing a local ordinance that prohibits certain types of signs. After the lawsuit is filed, the city amends the ordinance to remove the restriction that the plaintiff was challenging. What is the most accurate reason a federal court might dismiss the case?
The case is not moot because the court can issue an advisory opinion on similar challenges.
The case is moot because the city has removed the provision being challenged.
The case is moot unless the plaintiff amends the complaint to seek broader relief.
The case is not moot because the plaintiff initially suffered harm from the ordinance.
The case would likely be considered moot because the city’s amendment to the ordinance has removed the issue that the plaintiff was challenging. Mootness occurs when events subsequent to the filing of a case resolve the controversy, leaving no live issue for the court to decide. However, if there were ongoing harm or potential for the city to reinstate the restriction, the case might not be moot. This helps explain both the mootness doctrine and its exceptions, educating test-takers about how federal courts assess the continuing justiciability of a case.
Ask Bash
Bash is our AI bot, trained to help you pass your exam. AI Generated Content may display inaccurate information, always double-check anything important.
What does it mean for a case to be moot?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What is the mootness doctrine in federal court?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
Are there any exceptions to the mootness doctrine?