Bunting v. Mellen

Background

Two former cadets sued the Virginia Military Institute (VMI) challenging an invocation of God at VMI’s Supper Roll Call. They sought orders stopping the practice and money damages. The District Court ruled for the cadets, but by the time the Fourth Circuit decided, the cadets had graduated. The appeals court vacated the injunctive and declaratory relief as moot, left only a money claim against former Superintendent Josiah Bunting, and held Bunting entitled to qualified immunity. A new superintendent was later named but was never a real party to the controversy.

Reasoning

The core question was whether the Court should review the Fourth Circuit’s ruling about the supper prayer. Justice Stevens explained three reasons to deny review: no live controversy because the students graduated and Bunting retired; the damages claim was resolved by qualified immunity and not challenged; and the apparent conflict among other federal appeals courts was not direct because VMI’s military character made the case different. Justice Scalia dissented, arguing the Court should have taken the case to resolve a circuit split and to address problems caused by the sequencing rule that requires courts to decide constitutional questions before qualified-immunity claims.

Real world impact

By refusing review, the Supreme Court left the Fourth Circuit’s analysis in place and declined to provide a national ruling on prayer at public colleges or military schools. Officials, students, and lower courts remain without clear, nationwide guidance. The decision also highlights how qualified-immunity wins can leave important constitutional questions unreviewed.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Scalia’s dissent stresses that declining review perpetuates confusion and that this case was appropriate to clarify whether the Court’s sequencing rule should bar appellate review of significant constitutional rulings.