The Texas Supreme Court held that the defendant's voluntary cessation of challenged conduct did not render the plaintiff's claims for prospective relief moot where the challenged conduct might reasonably be expected to recur in Matthews v. Kountze I.S.D., 14-0453, 2016 Tex. LEXIS 95 (January 29, 2016). In that case, middle and high school cheerleaders had a tradition of displaying banners with religious messages at school-sponsored events. The school district established a policy that no religious signs or messages should be displayed. The cheerleaders, through their parents, sued the school district. The school district then passed an order that it was "not required to prohibit messages on school banners . . . that display fleeting expressions of community sentiment solely because the source or origin of such message is religious," but "retained the right to restrict the content of school banners."
The school district filed a plea to the jurisdiction based upon lack of standing, arguing that because the district voluntarily discontinued its prohibition of religious signs or messages the case had become moot. The trial court denied the district's plea, and the district took an interlocutory appeal. The court of appeals reversed the trial court, finding that the case had become moot.
The Supreme Court granted the petition for review to resolve a conflict among the courts of appeals. At least one court of appeals required that the defendant admit its policy was unconstitutional in order to moot the appeal, while the current court of appeals did not. The Supreme Court reviewed the court of appeals' decision de novo. The Court noted that a defendant's cessation of challenged conduct does not, in itself, deprive a court of the power to hear or determine claims for prospective relief. It if did, reasoned the Court, defendants could control the jurisdiction of courts with protestations of repentance and reform while remaining free to return to their old ways. Instead, the Court held a defendant arguing mootness must meet the "heavy burden" to make "absolutely clear that the [challenged conduct] could not reasonably be expected to recur."
The Supreme Court found that the school district did not meet its burden. While the district no longer prohibited the cheerleaders from displaying religious signs or messages on banners at school-sponsored events, it failed to provide adequate assurance that it would not prohibit the cheerleaders from doing so in the future. For that reason, the court of appeals' judgment was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
