Paige v. State

195 Vt. 302 (2013) · Supreme Court of Vermont · October 18, 2013

Summary

The Vermont Supreme Court dismissed as moot an appeal from the dismissal of H. Brooke Paige’s challenge to Barack Obama’s eligibility for the presidential ballot. The court held that the election had concluded, Obama was president and constitutionally barred from seeking reelection, and declaratory relief would be advisory. The court also rejected the exceptions for issues capable of repetition yet evading review and negative collateral consequences.

Court
Supreme Court of Vermont
Writing for the Court
Burgess, J.
Jurisdiction
Vermont
Decision date
October 18, 2013
Procedural posture
Plaintiff appealed the Washington Superior Court, Civil Division's dismissal of his action challenging Barack Obama's eligibility for the presidential ballot and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The Supreme Court of Vermont dismissed the appeal as moot.
Standard of review
Dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction is reviewed de novo.
Precedential value
Published Vermont Supreme Court opinion; precedential.
Parties
H. Brooke Paige v. State of Vermont, James Condos, Secretary of State
Disposition
dismissed

Topics

mootnesselection lawappellate proceduresubject matter jurisdictiondeclaratory judgment

Practice areas

election lawconstitutional lawappellate procedurecivil procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the appeal was moot because the election had occurred and the Supreme Court could no longer grant effective relief.
  2. Whether the capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review exception to mootness applied.
  3. Whether the negative-collateral-consequences exception to mootness applied.
  4. Whether the court could decide the constitutional meaning of natural-born citizen through declaratory relief.

Holdings

  1. The appeal was moot because the election had occurred, Barack Obama was President, he could not seek reelection, and the court could no longer grant effective relief.
  2. The capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review exception did not apply because Paige failed to show a reasonable expectation that he would again be subjected to the same action.
  3. The negative-collateral-consequences exception did not apply because Paige identified no personal or debilitating consequence and a Vermont ruling would not bind other state or federal presidential-election authorities.

Key quotations

The central question now before this Court on appeal is whether the mootness doctrine bars review of plaintiff’s case. (195 Vt. at 305)
The case is moot. Neither exception advocated by plaintiff applies here. (195 Vt. at 306)
Whatever the merit of his argument, plaintiffs cure in the form of declaratory relief is futile and so beyond this Court’s constitution.1 jurisdiction. (195 Vt. at 308)

Factual background

Paige, a Vermont resident and voter, challenged Barack Obama's eligibility to appear on Vermont's presidential ballot, arguing that the Constitution's natural-born-citizen requirement requires birth to two United States-citizen parents. He sought declaratory relief and an injunction against Vermont's Secretary of State. By the time the appeal was considered, the election had occurred, Obama was President, and he could not seek reelection under the Twenty-Second Amendment.

Procedural history

Paige filed a complaint on August 27, 2012, seeking declarations that Barack Obama was not a natural-born citizen eligible to serve as President and that Obama's Vermont election filings were void, as well as an injunction barring the Secretary of State from placing Obama's name on the ballot. The trial court granted defendants' motion to dismiss under Vermont Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and (6), concluding that Paige lacked standing because his claim was an impermissible generalized grievance. After the general election and denial of an expedited-hearing motion, Paige appealed; the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal as moot without reaching standing or the merits.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…