## Facts

- The Department of Defense implemented a program requiring armed forces members to provide blood and tissue samples for storage in a central repository for potential future DNA analysis.
- Two active-duty Marines sued federal military officials, seeking to represent a class of similarly situated service members subject to the program.
- Plaintiffs alleged the compulsory collection and storage of specimens, without adequate privacy safeguards, violated the Fourth Amendment.
- Plaintiffs also asserted that stored genetic information could be misused for discriminatory purposes (e.g., employment, insurance, or benefits decisions).
- The government justified the program primarily as a means to identify remains of service members killed in combat or training incidents.
- While the appeal was pending, both plaintiffs were honorably discharged and were never required to submit samples.
- During the litigation, the program was modified in ways that reduced the asserted risk (including changes described as shortening retention and permitting destruction on request).

## Issues

1. Whether the case remained a live Article III controversy after the named plaintiffs’ discharge removed them from the program’s coverage.
2. Whether the dispute fit the “capable of repetition, yet evading review” exception to mootness.
3. Whether the action could proceed on a class basis when the named plaintiffs’ individual claims became moot before any class was certified.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit held the case was moot because the plaintiffs were no longer subject to the DNA collection program and faced no real and immediate threat of being subjected to it again.
- The court rejected the “capable of repetition, yet evading review” exception because recurrence was speculative and the challenged policy was not inherently too short-lived to be reviewed in other suits.
- The court vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded with instructions to dismiss the action.
- The court did not reach the merits of the Fourth Amendment challenge to mandatory DNA sampling.

## Legal Principles

- Article III requires a live case or controversy at all stages; speculative future injury does not sustain jurisdiction.
- The “capable of repetition, yet evading review” exception applies only if (1) there is a reasonable expectation the same complaining party will face the same injury again, and (2) the challenged action is so limited in duration that it likely becomes moot before full judicial review.
- When named plaintiffs’ claims become moot before class certification, the class claims generally do not survive absent a live personal stake by a proper class representative.
- Vacatur is an appropriate remedy when a case becomes moot on appeal, preventing an unreviewable merits judgment from producing legal consequences.

## Conclusion

Because the named plaintiffs were discharged and no longer faced a concrete, non-speculative risk of being subjected to the military DNA repository program, the Ninth Circuit dismissed the case as moot, vacated the prior merits judgment, and remanded for dismissal without resolving the Fourth Amendment question.


Mayfield v. Dalton, 109 F.3d 1423 (9th Cir. 1997)