## Facts

- After the September 11, 2001 attacks, the government initiated removal proceedings against various noncitizens, many of whom were young men of Arab and Muslim background.
- Rabih Haddad, a native of Lebanon, had lived with his family in Michigan on and off since 1988.
- Haddad last entered the United States in 1998 on a six-month tourist visa and remained after the visa expired.
- In December 2001, federal agents arrested Haddad based on his visa overstay and placed him in removal proceedings.
- The immigration court closed Haddad’s removal proceedings to the public after the government designated his case as a “special interest” matter.
- Haddad filed a civil action against the Attorney General and related officials, challenging the constitutionality of the closed immigration hearings and seeking injunctive relief requiring public proceedings.
- The district court granted Haddad a preliminary injunction requiring the immigration court to conduct new, open public hearings.
- After the injunction, open hearings occurred in Haddad’s immigration case, and the immigration court entered a final order of removal.
- Haddad sought court-of-appeals review of the removal order, but his petition was denied as untimely.
- Haddad was removed from the United States.
- The government then moved in the Sixth Circuit to remand the civil case to the district court with instructions to vacate the preliminary injunction and dismiss the complaint as moot.

## Issues

1. Whether Haddad’s civil challenge to the closure of his removal proceedings became moot after open hearings were held, a final removal order issued, and Haddad was removed from the United States.
2. If the case was moot on appeal, whether the proper disposition was to remand with instructions to vacate the district court’s order and dismiss the complaint.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit concluded the case was moot because Haddad’s removal proceedings had ended, the requested relief relating to access to those proceedings could no longer affect the parties’ rights, and Haddad had been removed from the country.
- The court granted the government’s motion and remanded to the district court with instructions to vacate the preliminary-injunction order and dismiss the complaint as moot.

## Legal Principles

- Article III limits federal courts to live cases and controversies; a case is moot when intervening events make it impossible for the court to grant effective relief.
- When a case becomes moot while on appeal, an appellate court may order vacatur of the lower court’s judgment and remand with instructions to dismiss to avoid legal consequences from an unreviewable decision (a Munsingwear-type disposition).
- A request for forward-looking injunctive relief tied to a completed administrative proceeding generally becomes moot once the proceeding is concluded and the court cannot grant relief that changes the parties’ legal position in that proceeding.

## Conclusion

Because Haddad had already received new public hearings, the immigration case had ended in a final removal order, his attempt to obtain judicial review of that order was time-barred, and he had been removed from the United States, the Sixth Circuit held there was no longer a live dispute over the requested injunctive relief. It therefore remanded with instructions to vacate the district court’s preliminary injunction and dismiss the complaint as moot.


Haddad v. Ashcroft, 76 Fed. App'x 672 (2003)