for their support. I also want to thank Andrew Bernick and Olga Serafimova for superb research assistance and James Wirrell and Dragomir Cosanici of the Pacific McGeorge Law Library for their exceptional efforts. 1 See Liner v. Jafco, Inc., 375 U.S. 301, 306 n.3 (1964) (stating in dictum that federal courts lack jurisdiction to hear moot cases because moot cases do not present cases or controversies). Just fifteen years earlier, the same view had been urged in dissent by a lone Justice, protesting the Court's decision to hear an arguably moot case. See Eisler v. United States, 338 U.S. 189, 194 (1949) (Murphy, J., dissenting) ("We can decide only cases or controversies. A moot case is not a 'case' within the meaning of Art. Ill."); cf St. Pierre v. United States, 319 U.S. 41, 43 (1943) ("[The moral stigma of a judgment which no longer affects legal rights does not present a case or controversy for appellate review."). 2 See, e.g., Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305, 317-18 & n.5 (1988) (considering mootness argument not raised by any party but only by amicus curiae, the United States); Muhammad v. City of N.