Death and the Petitioner

One of my jobs at work is to keep track of pending Supreme Court cases so that the office is aware of breaking issues and won't be caught flat footed if something good happens. Don't laugh, it happens! This term, at the top of that list are two cases that will, hopefully, explain to us mortals exactly what sentencing should look like in a post-Booker world. One problem - the defendant/petitioner in one of those cases, Mario Claiborne, is now dead. Killed during flight from a grand theft auto (he was not the robber, for what it's worth). As a result, his case has been dismissed by the Court as moot. As a consequence, it appears that the lower appellate court decision against Claiborne has also been vacated. In much the same way that Ken Lay prevailed on appeal by dying, Claiborne's untimely snuffing at least means he went out a winner.

Should the Court have been so quick to dismiss? After all, the issues in Claiborne's case are vitally important to the day-to-day functioning of the federal courts and will have an impact on thousands of defendants. Over at FindLaw, Michael Dorf argues that the Court's standing jurisprudence is in conflict with it's role as a "constitutional court" rather than an error correcting court and that jurisprudence should be reconsidered. He may be right.