## Facts

- Low-income and elderly individuals, along with an advocacy organization, challenged a federal energy-assistance “Crisis Intervention Program” (CIP) rule requiring a utility shut-off notice to obtain benefits.
- Plaintiffs alleged the shut-off notice condition effectively made delinquency the decisive eligibility factor, contrary to statutory language providing that eligibility could not be based solely on delinquency in fuel-bill payments.
- The case was filed as a putative class action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and seeking to prevent unspent program funds from being returned to the Treasury.
- Early in the litigation, the district court entered a temporary restraining order barring return of unspent funds pending further order.
- The parties negotiated a settlement that the district court later vacated.
- The district court denied class certification, citing problems including unmanageability of the proposed class definition.
- On appeal, the central dispute concerned class certification and Article III justiciability in light of the vacated settlement, the short program cycle, and changed circumstances.

## Issues

1. Whether a proposed class defined as persons eligible for CIP assistance who were denied benefits or “discouraged from applying” by the challenged rule was sufficiently definite and objectively ascertainable under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.
2. Whether the passage of the relevant program year, expenditure/accounting of funds, and changed agency practices rendered requested relief moot or otherwise nonjusticiable.
3. Whether, given mootness and changed circumstances for named plaintiffs, any live controversy remained to support classwide relief.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of class certification.
- The court held the proposed class was not adequately definable or ascertainable because membership turned on individualized inquiries into eligibility and subjective “discouragement,” making identification administratively infeasible.
- The court agreed that class treatment would require person-by-person determinations (including causation between the rule and non-application), effectively creating individualized mini-trials.
- The court concluded that much of the requested relief had become moot or nonjusticiable given the short-lived program period, the status of the funds, the vacated settlement, and intervening changes.
- Certiorari was denied.

## Legal Principles

- A Rule 23 class must be defined by objective criteria so that membership can be determined in an administratively feasible manner.
- Class definitions that depend on subjective states of mind (such as being “discouraged” from applying) and individualized causation determinations are improper because they require case-by-case adjudication of membership.
- Manageability concerns include whether reliable records exist to identify class members and whether adjudication would devolve into individualized proceedings inconsistent with classwide treatment.
- Article III requires a continuing live controversy; when the relevant program period has passed and effective prospective relief is no longer available, broad injunctive or declaratory claims may become moot.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit refused to certify a class challenging a short-term benefits rule because the proposed class hinged on subjective and individualized membership criteria and, by the time of appeal, much of the requested programwide relief no longer presented a live controversy.


Simer v. Rios, 661 F.2d 655 (7th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 917 (1982)