Steve: Why does Roberts think “capable of repetition but evading review” means “capable of repetition to the same person but evading review”?I don’t know why Roberts thinks that, but that’s exactly how we learned the rule in law school.I guess one point would be that if it might happen to you again, you have enough of a stake in the controversy that we can expect you to litigate the case zealously. But if it’s a moot point and you’re never going to be in that situation again, then you care only in the abstract. It’s sort of a standing concept, it seems to me.

If the property owners are seeking an injunction, it seems that the standing considerations, not necessarily mootness, relied on in City of Los Angeles v. Lyons would govern.

”Do you know if those two claims – the government is actively involved after seizures, and a majority of seizures are uncontested – are true?I suppose the second could be verifiable, but the first, dang, I’m skeptical.(In fact it seems to me that he might even be hiding the unverifiability of the first claim with the second.)

Can’t speak as to the first, but when I was more connected to seizures when the practice took off 10 years ago or so, many of them were in fact not contested. The potential claimants often fled. In those cases, because of their close connection to controlled substances or an organization, they were willing to trade the value of the property, often cash, for their freedom.

1. Vote him/her out of office.
2. Generously contribute and hope for your own fortuitous First Amendment coincidence.

Yes, you vote them out of office.

And please refresh yourself on the many threads here- corporations (and individuals, PACs, unions, etc.) are only giving money to politicians out of there love for the First Amendment and, perhaps, access. That the politicians might act in the interest of those that elect him/her is mere happy First Amendment coincidence.

I think the first point is hogwash.

wesley: I saw this, from Mr. Jay, in the oral argument:“But as a practical matter, States and the Federal Government are not sitting around doing nothing after seizing property. They are actively investigating who has a claim, they are notifying all claimants, they are allowing — allowing those claimants to file claims if they wish. A majority of all seizures are uncontested.”Do you know if those two claims – the government is actively involved after seizures, and a majority of seizures are uncontested – are true?I suppose the second could be verifiable, but the first, dang, I’m skeptical.(In fact it seems to me that he might even be hiding the unverifiability of the first claim with the second.)

The only call for a domestic coup I can recall came from one of the conservatives at TownHall.

Hey buddy, leave my wife out of this, or she might start some warrentless surveillance on you.
And I notice you are only against foreign coups, not foreign and domestic. that would make you a liberal.

Doubtless the question can be addressed if some other plaintiff, whose lawyer doesn’t make the same mistakes, brings a similar claim.

David H.: The Chief seemed to be opening the door for the ultra rare Munsingwear Order, and reading through the entire transcript, I got the feeling this won’t be DIG’d.

Doesn’t a Munsingwear order only apply when the mootness is from happenstance, and not by voluntary action of the party that doesn’t like the judgement?

And can’t the cops come and re-seize the property any time they want? If so, it wouldn’t be moot, correct?

ArthurKirkland: foreign coups

Wait, what’s wrong with supporting foreign coups, in certain cases?

David H.: I got the feeling this won’t be DIG’d.

BossPup: The case looks like it is going to get DIGged.

I always write “dug” :-)

Wouldn’t a more deserving plaintiff, standing-wise, be someone who had not yet been arrested and sought to prevent his arbitrary detention?

Such injury is highly speculative, isn’t it?

Which, apparently, makes me a libertarian.

Bet that surprised ya

Not really. I suspect I am as much a libertarian as most of those who claim to be ‘conservative-leaning libertarians.’

I do not claim to be a libertarian, just as I have no respect for a claim of libertarianism from anyone who supports (or shacks up with those who support) the drug war, gay-bashing, warrantless surveillance, school prayer, torture, abortion-related censorship, invading the wrong country, open-ended detention, prudish prosecutions, foreign coups, religious observance in public oaths and proceedings, gambling prohibitions, and many other features of the conservative agenda/Republican platform.

cirby: …and not in a “we kept him from hiring lawyers, and the extralegal costs involved drove him to bankruptcy” way.

And not in a “we sold the stuff and bought more cool SWAT toys” way.

They are actively investigating who has a claim, they are notifying all claimants,

Given the state titling laws, I kinda doubt it takes months to figure out who a car belongs to and who might have a lien on it.

they are allowing — allowing those claimants to file claims if they wish.

I guess this spokesperson missed the “without giving the owners any chance challenge the seizure” part.

Anon21: The intersection of property rights and the drug war is indeed an interesting one.

The intersection of all rights and the drug war is beginning to look like a pedestrian/vehicle accident. It’s not who’s right, but who’s left.

Oren: Suppose the City of Chicago decided to arbitrarily arrest people for brief periods of time without probable cause, but kept a list ensuring that no person would be targeted twice. Surely a plaintiff (who would have long since been released) would deserve injunctive relief despite an absolute certainty that the situation was incapable of repetition with respect to him personally.

Wouldn’t a more deserving plaintiff, standing-wise, be someone who had not yet been arrested and sought to prevent his arbitrary detention?

I don’t know why Roberts thinks that, but that’s exactly how we learned the rule in law school.

I guess one point would be that if it might happen to you again, you have enough of a stake in the controversy that we can expect you to litigate the case zealously. But if it’s a moot point and you’re never going to be in that situation again, then you care only in the abstract. It’s sort of a standing concept, it seems to me.

Which, apparently, makes me a libertarian.

Bet that surprised ya.

ArthurKirkland: I root against drug warriors on almost every point short of threats to their safety — I hope they botch every investigation, that every trial ends in acquittal, that their equipment malfunctions, that citizens refuse to cooperate with them, etc. — and believe that unchecked government power is bad. That makes this an easy case for me.Which, apparently, makes me a libertarian.

Arthur and I actually agree on something!

Steve: Did the plaintiffs not have a claim for damages, only a claim to get their property back? Sounds like a case that would have mootness written on it a long time ago.

Without knowing anything about the case, I was wondering about that too. Couldn’t the plaintiffs have come up with some money damages from not having their cars? CTA fares, taxi payments, car rental fees, or some other sort of money damages? Or is there some other rule that would prevent those kinds of costs from being recovered?

I guess also they could have foregone a claim for damages to improve their chances for class cert, but there are an awful lot of cases saying that differences in calculating damages won’t prevent class cert, so I doubt that was a valid concern.

Suppose the City of Chicago decided to arbitrarily arrest people for brief periods of time without probable cause, but kept a list ensuring that no person would be targeted twice. Surely a plaintiff (who would have long since been released) would deserve injunctive relief despite an absolute certainty that the situation was incapable of repetition with respect to him personally.

Which, apparently, makes me a libertarian.

…and not in a “we kept him from hiring lawyers, and the extralegal costs involved drove him to bankruptcy” way.

“But as a practical matter, States and the Federal Government are not sitting around doing nothing after seizing property. They are actively investigating who has a claim, they are notifying all claimants, they are allowing — allowing those claimants to file claims if they wish. A majority of all seizures are uncontested.”

Do you know if those two claims – the government is actively involved after seizures, and a majority of seizures are uncontested – are true? I suppose the second could be verifiable, but the first, dang, I’m skeptical. (In fact it seems to me that he might even be hiding the unverifiability of the first claim with the second.)

I may not agree with Ilya all that often, but he’s absolutely correct that this should have been an easy case. That it got cert at all is casts a shadow on the court’s commitment to upholding the constitution.

I don’t think I do. However, I do see the annoying italics elsewhere on the blog, and I have alerted Eugene. Hopefully, the problem will soon be addressed.