mootness-doctrine

QUESTIONS PRESENTED I. Does the Supreme Court’s Mootness Doctrine found in Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc., 528 U. S. 167 (2000), hereinafter “Friends”, and Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, 141 S.Ct. 63 : (2020), hereinafter “Diocese of Brooklyn”, have any consistent precedential value? The Circuit Courts ‘ seem to apply mootness liberally in contradiction to Friends and Diocese of Brooklyn whenever they feel like it. Il. Is it an error under the Court’s Mootness Doctrine if a court finds mootness after ignoring evidence of a Governor’s promise to return to complained of restrictions in the future under conditions which are possible in the future? , TI. Can it be absolutely clear that complained of restrictions will not recur for mootness when a chief executive makes public statements : promising such restrictions and it is reasonable to ; believe that the conditions for triggering the ii . promised restrictions will occur? . IV. Does’ arbitrarily denying persons without counsel oral arguments shortly after allowing oral arguments to represented parties in almost identical cases show an abuse of discretion? V. Can an Appellate Court capriciously ' treat unrepresented parties substantially different in : application of its discretion than it treats . represented parties without violating the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause? ;