Mary Frances Berry, et al. v. Ronald Reagan, President, United States of America, Appellant, 732 F.2d 949 (D.C. Cir. 1984)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit - 732 F.2d 949 (D.C. Cir. 1984) Argued on Motion to Summarily Reversethe District Court and to Issue a StayNov. 21, 1983
Decided Nov. 30, 1983. Ordered Published March 20, 1984

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (Civil Action No. 83-03182).

Robert E. Kopp, Alfred Mollin, J. Paul McGrath and Richard K. Willard, Attys., U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for appellant.

Eric Schnapper, New York City, Elaine R. Jones, Washington, D.C., Barry L. Goldstein, Yonkers, N.Y., Brent E. Simmons, New York City, and Jack Greenberg, Yonkers, N.Y., by special leave of Court, for appellees.

Before WILKEY and MIKVA, Circuit Judges, McGOWAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.


Upon consideration of appellant's motion for summary reversal and for a stay pending appeal, appellees' opposition, appellant's reply thereto, and the oral argument of the parties, it is

ORDERED by the Court that, the statutory period for the existence of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights as presently constituted having expired, 42 U.S.C. § 1975c(d), the judgment of the district court is vacated and this cause is remanded to the district court with directions to dismiss the suit as moot. See United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36, 39, 71 S. Ct. 104, 106, 95 L. Ed. 36 (1950); Great Western Sugar Co. v. Nelson, 442 U.S. 92, 93-94, 99 S. Ct. 2149, 2149-50, 60 L. Ed. 2d 735 (1979) (per curiam). In Kalaris v. Donovan, 697 F.2d 376, 389-401 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 103 S. Ct. 3088, 77 L. Ed. 2d 1349 (1983), this court most recently visited the delicate area of tenure of office. There is no occasion to reaffirm any of its teachings in the case sub judice.

The Clerk is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the District Court.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.