## Facts

- Mark Whitney sued the President and the United States seeking declaratory and injunctive relief under the War Powers Resolution regarding U.S. military involvement in Libya.
- In March 2011, the U.N. Security Council adopted Resolution 1973, authorizing a no-fly zone and “all necessary measures” short of occupation to protect civilians in Libya.
- NATO began Operation Unified Protector; the United States participated in a supporting role, including intelligence, logistical support, search-and-rescue assistance, and communications-jamming capabilities.
- After Muammar Qaddafi’s death and the defeat of his forces, the United States ceased air operations supporting the mission on October 31, 2011.
- The government filed a suggestion of mootness, asserting that the military activity challenged in the complaint ended in 2011 and that no ongoing hostilities remained to enjoin.
- Whitney argued the dispute remained live due to continuing effects and because similar unilateral uses of force were likely to recur, including in Libya or Syria.

## Issues

1. Whether the challenge to the President’s Libya deployment presented a live Article III case or controversy after U.S. air operations ended in 2011.
2. Whether the “capable of repetition, yet evading review” exception to mootness applied based on alleged likelihood of similar future presidential military actions without specific congressional authorization.

## Decision

- The court dismissed the complaint as moot.
- The court assumed, without deciding, that Whitney had standing and resolved the case solely on mootness.
- The court held it could not grant effective declaratory or injunctive relief because the challenged air operations had ended and remaining U.S. activity was not ongoing hostilities.
- The court rejected the “capable of repetition, yet evading review” exception because the asserted likelihood of recurrence was speculative and not tied to a demonstrated probability that the same plaintiff would be subject to the same action again.

## Legal Principles

- Article III requires a live case or controversy to persist through all stages of litigation; a case is moot when intervening events eliminate the injury or prevent a court from granting effective relief.
- A court may assume standing arguendo when dismissing on mootness grounds, avoiding unnecessary resolution of other jurisdictional questions.
- The “capable of repetition, yet evading review” exception requires (1) inherently short duration preventing full litigation before cessation and (2) a reasonable expectation or demonstrated probability that the same plaintiff will face the same challenged action again.
- Declaratory relief that only pronounces past conduct unlawful, without a live dispute amenable to concrete relief, constitutes an advisory opinion and is not permitted.

## Conclusion

The court dismissed the War Powers Resolution challenge to U.S. involvement in Libya because the specific military operations had already ended, leaving no effective relief for the court to grant, and the asserted prospect of similar future conflicts was too speculative to satisfy the narrow exception for disputes capable of repetition yet evading review.


Whitney v. Obama, 845 F. Supp. 2d 136 (D.D.C. 2012)