## Facts

- In 2003, an Oregon child protective services worker and a county deputy sheriff interviewed nine-year-old S.G. at her elementary school regarding allegations of sexual abuse by her father.
- The interview occurred without a warrant, court order, parental consent, or claimed exigent circumstances.
- S.G. made statements during the interview indicating abuse.
- Criminal charges against S.G.’s father were later dismissed after a jury failed to reach a verdict.
- S.G.’s mother filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging the school interview constituted an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment.

## Issues

1. Whether appellate courts may review a lower court’s adverse constitutional ruling at the request of government officials who prevailed in the judgment below because qualified immunity barred damages.
2. Whether the dispute remained a live Article III controversy permitting Supreme Court review.
3. If review were proper, whether the school interview without a warrant, court order, parental consent, or exigency violated the Fourth Amendment.

## Decision

- The Court held that, in general, it has statutory authority and Article III power to review an adverse constitutional ruling upon the petition of a government official who prevailed on qualified immunity.
- The Court concluded this case became moot because S.G. was nearly an adult and had moved away, making recurrence of the challenged practice as to her unlikely.
- The Court did not decide the Fourth Amendment merits.
- The Court vacated the portion of the Ninth Circuit decision addressing the Fourth Amendment and remanded.

## Legal Principles

- Under 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1), the Supreme Court may grant certiorari “upon the petition of any party,” including a party that prevailed in the judgment below.
- A prevailing government official can have a sufficient personal stake to seek review when a lower court’s adverse constitutional ruling may bind future conduct and increase exposure to future liability in cases where immunity may not apply.
- Article III mootness bars merits review when intervening events eliminate a live controversy and the dispute is not reasonably capable of repetition as to the same party.
- When a case becomes moot while on review, vacatur of the unreviewable constitutional ruling is appropriate to prevent it from retaining precedential effect.

## Conclusion

The Court recognized that prevailing officials may, as a general matter, seek Supreme Court review of adverse constitutional holdings entered alongside qualified-immunity judgments, but it dismissed this case as moot, vacated the Ninth Circuit’s Fourth Amendment ruling, and remanded without resolving the constitutionality of the school interview.


Camreta v. Greene, 563 U.S. 692 (2011)