After the State had appealed to this Court from the District
Court's judgment invalidating a legislative senatorial districting
plan, the Tennessee Legislature enacted a new plan. This Court then
vacated the District Court's judgment and directed that the action
be dismissed as moot.
Held: Since the recent legislation did not moot the
entire case, but only the issue raised on appeal, this Court's
prior order is vacated and, in lieu thereof, the District Court's
judgment is vacated without prejudice to such further proceedings
in that court as may be appropriate.
Rehearing granted; vacated.
PER CURIAM.
The petition for rehearing is granted.
In
Kopald v. Carr, 343 F. Supp.
51 (MD Tenn.1972), the District Court applied this Court's
earlier holding in
Baker v. Carr, 369 U.
S. 186 (1962), to invalidate two senatorial districting
plans. That decision resulted in the formulation of a so-called
court ordered "Kopald Plan." That plan was superseded by a 1973
legislative plan.
In this litigation, the District Court invalidated the 1973
legislative plan. It enjoined the defendants from conducting any
elections pursuant to that plan and retained Jurisdiction to review
whatever substitute the Tennessee General Assembly might enact
prior to June 1, 1979, or, if necessary, to reinstate the 1972
"Kopald Plan." The court further ordered a hearing to award fees to
plaintiffs' counsel.
In response to the State's appeal to this Court, appellees
pointed out that the legislature had enacted a new plan effective
on June 6, 1979, argued that the controversy over the
Page 444 U. S. 506
validity of the 1973 legislative plan had therefore become moot,
and requested that the appeal therefore be dismissed. This Court,
following a practice that is appropriate when an entire case has
become moot but which is inappropriate when only the issues raised
on appeal have been resolved, entered an order directing that the
judgment of the District Court be vacated and that the entire
action be dismissed as moot.
Post p. 806.
The recent legislation did not moot the entire case, but only
the issues raised on appeal. Appellees may still wish to attack the
newly enacted legislation or apply for attorney's fees. We
therefore vacate our prior order. In lieu thereof, we direct that
the judgment of the District Court be vacated without prejudice to
such further proceedings in the District Court as may be
appropriate.
See Diffenderfer v. Central Baptist Church,
404 U. S. 412
(1972).
It is so ordered.
