In May Judge Alice Batchelder of the 6th Circuit concluded that Chief Judge Boyce Martin improperly used his position to delay a ruling in one of the Michigan affirmative action cases until two judges he thought critical of the Michigan program would be ineligible to vote. If that was the case, it worked; the court then upheld the Michigan law school program by a vote of 5 to 4.
Judge Martin appealed to the 6th Circuit Judicial Conference, as did Judicial Watch, which filed the original complaint and was dissatisfied that Judge Martin had not been punished.
Now the Judicial Conference has declared the whole matter moot, and dropped it, because Judge Martin’s term as chief judge is over and the underlying case has been decided.
I am familiar with the concept of mootness, actual cases and controversies, etc., and yet there is something troubling here. If a complaint were filed with a school board charging a principal with altering the grades of his favorite students, would we be satisfied with the board washing its hands of the matter because the principal’s term was over and the students had already graduated?
