THOMAS ALEXANDER PORTER; ANTHONY BERNARD JUNIPER; MARK LAWLOR; RICKY JOVAN GRAY and IVAN TELEGUZ v. HAROLD W. CLARKE; DAVID ZOOK
US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Wynn, March 24, 2017,
Mootness – A suit alleging an unconstitutional policy will not be dismissed just because the policy changes where the policy could just as easily change back.

Facts
A number of death row inmates filed suit against Virginia for policies governing how they were treated.
Virginia changed the policies after the suit, and tried to get the case dismissed because it wasn’t an issue anymore. The trial court agreed.
The inmates appealed, claiming that the issue wasn’t moot because once the case was dismissed Virginia could go right back to the way they used to do things.
Law from the Case
Held: This case is still valid because “nothing bars the Corrections Department from reverting to the challenged policies in the future.”
Mootness – An issue is “moot” if it no longer matters what the court does because the problem does not exist anymore.
Mootness – A court will generally not consider an issue if it is moot.
Mootness- However, an issue is not moot if one of the parties could easily go back to what they were doing that caused the issue.
From the case: The case was held to be moot with regard to one of the inmates. “Ricky Jovan Gray, another plaintiff involved in this appeal, was executed by the State of Virginia on January 18, 2017, rendering his appeal moot.”