Johnson, et al. v. Reed, etc., [Ms. SC-2022-0897, Sept. 12, 2025] __ So. 3d __ (Ala. 2025). On remand from the United States Supreme Court’s reversal of the Court’s decision affirming the dismissal of Plaintiffs’ §1983 due process claims asserted against Greg Reed, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Alabama Department of Workforce, arising from delay in processing their claims for unemployment benefits, the Court (Lewis, J.; Stewart, C.J., and Bryan, Sellers, Mendheim, Cook, and McCool, JJ., concur; Shaw, J., concurs in the result; Wise, J., recuses) denies the Secretary’s motion to dismiss and remands the case to the Montgomery Circuit Court to determine the issue of mootness.
The United States Supreme Court decision held that the dismissal of Plaintiffs’ claims contravened its precedents by allowing “‘the State’s administrative-exhaustion requirement for unemployment benefits claims to in effect immunize the … Secretary … from §1983 due process suits alleging that the Department has unlawfully delayed in processing benefits claims.’” Ms. *4, quoting Williams v. Reed, 604 U.S., ___, ___, 145 S. Ct. at 473 (2025). Following remand, the Secretary filed a supplemental brief contending that, the Plaintiffs “have all either been paid in full or received administratively final denials, such that even a favorable decision from this Court would accomplish nothing…” Ms. *5, internal quotation marks omitted. The plaintiffs denied the Secretary’s contention and requested remand to the circuit court.
In remanding, the Court holds “[a]lthough this Court may receive facts concerning whether a case has become moot, see Aliant Bank v. Carter, 197 So. 3d 981, 984 (Ala. 2015), here, the supplemental briefs reveal a factual dispute germane to the issue of mootness that is better resolved by the circuit court.” Ms. *6. The Court notes that the Plaintiffs’ claims for unemployment benefits were submitted during the COVID-19 pandemic when “1.5 million such applications [were filed] with the Department between April 2020 and March 2022, far above the 737 applications that had been filed in May 2019…” Ms. *6, n. 4. The Court concludes “[c]onsidering the unprecedented circumstances that gave rise to this case,” it would be best for the circuit court determine the issue of mootness, including whether the case comes within an exception such as “capable of repetition yet evading review.” Ms. **6-7, n. 4.