Laskowski v. Spellings II

A couple of years ago, a divided Seventh Circuit panel decided Laskowski v. Spellings. The dissenter, Judge Diane Sykes, wrote (quite correctly and "with considerable force," FRRF v. Chao, 447 F.3d 988 (7th Cir. 2006) (Easterbrook, J., concurring in denial of rehearing en banc)) that the case was moot; the majority thought it could be kept on life support by (as Sykes put it, in a really terrific dissent) "declaring the availability of a form of restitutionary relief that was not sought by the plaintiff taxpayers and is inconsistent with the doctrine of taxpayer standing."

With admirable foresight, the University of Notre Dame (they had intervened in the suit qua the recipient of the moneys that Education Secretary Spellings had disbursed to the displeasure of the plaintiffs) sought cert. Last June, the court granted and vacated, sending the case back to the Seventh Circuit for reconsideration in light of Hein v. FFRF. (I wrote about Hein here - ironically enough, quoting from Sykes' Laskowski I dissent to explain a point I made - here and here.)

Yesterday the panel issued its opinion on remand. Judge Sykes writes for the panel - with, I hope, some satisfaction - to explain why she was right in the first place. (I'm oversimplifying, but only by a little.) Take a look.