us-constitution us-supreme-court religion
Why did the US Supreme Court hear this case?
<p>An op-ed entitled <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/06/a-major-church-state-case-that-shouldnt-have-happened/531789" rel="nofollow noreferrer">A Major Church-State Ruling That Shouldn't Have Happened</a> claims that</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>In <a href="http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/trinity-lutheran-church-of-columbia-inc-v-pauley" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><em>Trinity v. Comer</em></a>, there was no remaining dispute between the actual parties</p>
</blockquote>

<p>As I understand it, courts have no power to seek out cases or issues to rule on.  A party with standing must bring the case to the court.  (I've usually heard this in response to rhetoric about "activist judges.")  So either my understanding has been wrong, or there's more to the story of <em>Trinity v. Comer</em>.</p>

<p><strong>If there was no remaining dispute, why did SCOTUS hear this case?</strong></p>

<p>The explanation in the <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-577_khlp.pdf" rel="noreferrer">decision</a> (fn 1) is that</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>That  announcement  does  not  moot  this  case.   We  have  said 
  that  such  voluntary  cessation  of  a  challenged  practice   does 
  not  moot  a  case  unless  “subsequent  events  ma[ke]  it 
  absolutely clear  that  the  allegedly  wrongful  behavior  could  not
  reasonably  be expected to recur.” [citations] The Department has not
  carried the “heavy burden” of  making “absolutely clear” that it could
  not revert to its policy of excluding  religious  organizations... “there  is  no  clearly  effective  barrier  that  would prevent 
  the  [Department]  from  reinstating  [its]  policy  in  the  future”</p>
</blockquote>

<p>This is quite unusual and it is not unheard of for SCOTUS cases to be dismissed because they become moot during the course of the proceedings. </p>

<p>It could be that no one advised the Court that the case was settled and moot, perhaps because both sides wanted to have the legal issue resolve for posterity.</p>

<p>There is an exception to the mootness rule for circumstances that are likely to alway become moot but are likely to recur if not ruled upon because the events involved have a shorter timeline than the court process. Many abortion cases and cases involved the rights of school students have this character, but this one is not an obvious example. Perhaps the suit is still valid under this doctrine because it involves grant applications in a different budget cycle.</p>
