The Sixth Circuit has observed that "[c]hallenges to election laws quintessential[ly] evade review because the remedy sought is rendered impossible by the occurrence of the relevant election." In re: 2016 Primary Election, 836 F.3d 584, 588 (6th Cir. 2016) (quoting Platt v. Bd. of Comm'rs on Grievances & Discipline of Ohio Supreme Court, 769 F.3d 447, 452-53 (6th Cir. 2014)). As a result, the Sixth Circuit applies a "somewhat relaxed" inquiry with regard to whether an election-related case meets the requirements of the "capable of repetition, yet evading review" exception.
Indeed, Fund Liquidation's interpretation of Rule 9 would be particularly hard to swallow in cases, unlike this one, where the original plaintiff never existed whatsoever. Because one elemental precondition for meeting the case-or-controversy requirement is a claimant with standing, Lujan , 504 U.S. at 560–61, 112 S.Ct. 2130, it must be that the non-existence of the supposed claimant is a problem of constitutional magnitude, see In re 2016 Primary Election , 836 F.3d 584, 587 (6th Cir. 2016) (holding that "[t]here is no plaintiff with standing if there is no plaintiff"); see also LN Mgmt., LLC v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. , 957 F.3d 943, 953 (9th Cir. 2020) (same); House v. Mitra QSR KNE LLC , 796 F. App'x 783, 787 (4th Cir. 2019) (same). Fund Liquidation's primary response to this argument is to identify various prior cases in which dissolved corporate entities were not thrown out of court for lack of standing.
However, federal courts must decide jurisdictional questions before considering issues related to the merits of a case. See In re: 2016 Primary Election, 836 F.3d 584, 587 (6th Cir. 2016). Although Defendants' jurisdictional challenge was not raised on appeal, "we always have 'jurisdiction on appeal . . . for the purpose of correcting the error of the lower court in entertaining the suit' in the first place[,]" specifically when there exists a pertinent question on whether a litigant has standing to bring the lawsuit. Id. at 587 (quoting Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83, 95 (1998)).
Without adverse parties, there can be no subject matter jurisdiction under Article III. See, e.g., In re 2016 Primary Election, 836 F.3d 584, 587 (6th Cir. 2016) ("There is no plaintiff with standing if there is no plaintiff."); see also 13 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 3530 (3d ed. 2023) ("The most elemental requirement of adversary litigation is that there be two or more parties."). CONCLUSION
Federal courts have discretion to address jurisdictional issues in any order and can choose to address the " ‘eas[y]’ rather than the more ‘difficult’ jurisdictional issue." In re: 2016 Primary Election , 836 F.3d 584, 587 (6th Cir. 2016). In this case, the mootness issue is the easier one to resolve.
We thus exercise our discretion to begin with standing, which, as it turns out, moots any mootness issue. See In re 2016 Primary Election , 836 F.3d 584, 587 (6th Cir. 2016). II
The capable-of-repetition exception features regularly in election disputes. See In re 2016 Primary Election , 836 F.3d 584, 588 (6th Cir. 2016). To be capable of repetition but evading review, a dispute must satisfy a two-pronged test.
The capable-of-repetition exception features regularly in election disputes. See In re 2016 Primary Election, 836 F.3d 584, 588 (6th Cir. 2016). To be capable of repetition but evading review, a dispute must satisfy a two-pronged test.
See Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona , 520 U.S. 43, 66–67, 117 S.Ct. 1055, 137 L.Ed.2d 170 (1997) ("We may resolve the question whether there remains a live case or controversy ... without first determining whether [plaintiffs have] standing to appeal because the former question, like the latter, goes to the Article III jurisdiction of this Court and the courts below, not the merits of the case."); In re: 2016 Primary Election , 836 F.3d 584, (6th Cir. 2016) (recognizing that this court has "discretion to address jurisdictional issues ‘in any sequence we wish’ " (quoting Warshak v. United States , 532 F.3d 521, 525 (6th Cir. 2008) (en banc))). B.
All of this makes it tempting to look the other way when one-of-a-kind filings unwittingly and unintentionally sidestep the strictures of Article III. But just as federal courts may not permit "plaintiff-less complaints" filed under novel circumstances, In re: 2016 Primary Election, 836 F.3d 584, 588 (6th Cir. 2016), they may not decide controversy-less disputes under prosaic circumstances. A dispute must be real, substantial, and "admitting of specific relief through a decree of a conclusive character."