Last modified on March 18, 2023, at 03:09

Moot

A moot case or a moot point is one not subject to a judicial determination because it involves an abstract question or a pretended controversy that has not yet actually arisen or has already passed. Mootness usually refers to a court's refusal to consider a case because the issue involved has been resolved prior to the court's decision, leaving nothing that would be affected by the court's decision.

In its original sense a moot was a gathering or assembly of people, generally, but not especially, for a judicial purpose. The word is Old English and comes from the same Old Germanic root as meet. Originally it could also apply to the place where the meeting was held – moot hall, ‘’moot hill’’ for example. These terms, and other uses like shiremoot, burghmoot, wardmoot (assemblies of people of the shire, burgh, or ward) do not survive. An exception can be made for moot court in which law students can practice their arguments.

Today it can mean any argument or discussion. As an adjective, its use in moot point means a point of argument that has yet to be agreed on, whether in a legal context or not.

Statutory repeal

Following these decisions, nearly "all [other] circuits to address the issue" have interpreted City of Mesquite "to support the rule that repeal of a contested ordinance moots a plaintiff's injunction request, absent evidence that the City plans to or already has reenacted the challenged law or one substantially similar." McCorvey v. Hill, 385 F.3d 846, 849 (5th Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Libertarian Party of Ark. v. Martin, 876 F.3d 948, 951 (8th Cir. 2017) (noting statutory change is usually enough to moot a challenge to the statute even though legislature maintains power to reenact); Coral Springs St. Sys., Inc. v. City of Sunrise, 371 F.3d 1320, 1329-33 (11th Cir. 2004) (noting repeal generally moots a challenge to a statute unless legislature reasonably likely to reenact); Fed'n of Adver. Indus. Representatives, Inc. v. City of Chicago, 326 F.3d 924, 930 (7th Cir. 2003) (noting "[r]ather than presuming bad faith" on the part of the government, court considers complete repeal to render a case moot unless reasonable expectation of reenactment).

Bd. of Trs. of the Glazing Health & Welfare Tr. v. Chambers, 941 F.3d 1195, 1198-99 (9th Cir. 2019).