James Thomas v. Bill Lee ( 2019 )

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 19a0477n.06
Case No. 18-5766
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
FILED
Sep 12, 2019
JAMES THOMAS and DAVID HIXSON, on ) DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk
behalf of themselves and all others similarly )
situated, )
) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
Plaintiffs-Appellees, ) STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
) THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF
v. ) TENNESSEE
)
BILL LEE, Governor of Tennessee, in his )
official capacity, )
)
Defendant, )
)
JEFF LONG, Commissioner for the )
Department of Safety and Homeland Security, )
in his official capacity, )
)
Defendant-Appellant )
BEFORE: ROGERS, DONALD, and THAPAR, Circuit Judges.
BERNICE BOUIE DONALD, Circuit Judge. James Thomas and David Hixson are
Tennessee residents whose driver’s licenses were revoked pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-24-
105(b)(1) (2018) (“Section 105”) for failure to timely pay litigation taxes, court costs, and fines
assessed as a result of criminal convictions for each. Thomas and Hixson filed a lawsuit claiming
that Section 105 violates their constitutional rights because it does not provide an exception for
the indigent. On cross motions for summary judgment, the district court agreed with them on each
Case No. 18-5766, Thomas v. Lee
of their claims and 1) declared the law unconstitutional, 2) ordered reinstatement of all licenses
that had been revoked based solely on an individual’s inability to pay court debt, and 3) directed
the state to cease further revocation of driver’s licenses until a lawful procedure was implemented.
The state appealed.
Since that appeal was filed, the state enacted a new law that amends Section 105 by, inter
alia, providing an indigency exception. 2019 Tenn. Pub. Acts Ch. 438. We asked the parties to
provide further briefing on the impact of this new law. The plaintiffs vigorously contend in their
supplemental briefing that the new law provides them the relief they originally sought and thus
moots the underlying litigation. Where a plaintiff prevails in invalidating a statute, but then on
appeal withdraws its claim and concedes mootness, the issue is no longer live or justiciable.
Webster v. Reprod. Health Servs., 492 U.S. 490, 512 (1989) (“Plaintiffs are masters of their
complaints and remain so at the appellate stage of a litigation.”); see also Remus Joint Venture v.
McAnally, 116 F.3d 180, 185 (6th Cir. 1997) (“Although this case has contained numerous
complexities, our decision that no Article III case or controversy exists rests on a simple fact:
plaintiffs voluntarily have abandoned an argument that was necessary for them to prevail in this
federal court action.”). Accordingly, this case is now moot.
The next question is what to do with the district court judgment. The defendants argue
that, if this Court were to determine that no live issue remains, then they would still be subject to
the district court’s directives. They are incorrect. “When a claim is rendered moot while awaiting
review by this Court, the judgment below should be vacated with directions to the District Court
to dismiss the relevant portion of the complaint [with prejudice].” Deakins v. Monaghan, 484 U.S.
193, 200 (1988). As our Court has explained:
The idea is that when a party seeks relief from the merits of an adverse ruling, but
is frustrated by the vagaries of circumstance from obtaining an appellate ruling, it
-2-
Case No. 18-5766, Thomas v. Lee
makes little sense to compel the losing party to live with the precedential and
preclusive effects of the adverse ruling without having had a chance to appeal it.
Fialka-Feldman v. Oakland Univ. Bd. of Trs., 639 F.3d 711, 716 (6th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation
marks omitted).
Accordingly, because the issues raised in this appeal and the underlying case have become
moot, we VACATE the judgment of the district court and REMAND with instructions to dismiss
the underlying litigation as moot.
-3-