Alabama, et al. v. Alabama State Conference of the NAACP, et al.

This Court has long held that vacatur of a court of appeals decision is warranted when the appeal becomes moot “while on its way” to this Court. See United States v. Munsingwear, 340 U.S. 36, 39 (1950). And an interlocutory appeal becomes moot when a district court enters final judgment in the underlying case. See Grupo Mexicano de Desarrollo S.A. v. Alliance Bond Fund, Inc., 527 U.S. 308, 314 (1998). This Court has accordingly vacated decisions in interlocutory appeals that became moot because the district court entered final judgment after the court of appeals ruled. See Harper ex rel. Harper v. Poway Unified Sch. Dist., 549 U.S. 1262, 1262 (2007). In this case, the State of Alabama and Alabama’s Secretary of State filed an interlocutory appeal from a district court ruling that the Voting Rights Act abrogated the State’s sovereign immunity. More than two years later, a divided Eleventh Circuit panel affirmed, and two days after that, the appeal became moot when the district court ruled on the merits for the State. Though the Eleventh Circuit agreed that the appeal was moot, the court declined to vacate its decision. This case presents the following question: Whether the Eleventh Circuit’s unreviewed and unreviewable decision should be vacated.