In In re Naomi B.,[1] the supreme court held that all appeals of involuntary admission and compulsory taking of medication fall under the public interest exception to mootness. The two consolidated cases before the supreme court concerned the Alaska Adult Protective Services (APS) petitions for an ex parte order that would commit Naomi B. to the Alaska Psychiatric Institute and force Naomi B. to take prescribed medication, and also APS’s petition for an ex parte order involuntarily commit Linda M. Naomi B. and Linda M. appealed their trial court rulings, despite their claims now being moot and not falling under the public interest exception to mootness put forth in Wetherton. The supreme court overruled Wetherton, noting that litigation concerning involuntary admissions and forced medication is overrun with mootness claims, opposed to “merits-based briefing.” Here, the court applied the public interest exception to mootness, citing factors such as pressing legal questions that are “repeatedly circumvented” where litigants have been robbed of “judicial guidance” and replicability, noting that identical facts are not necessary to constitute being “replicable.” In dicta, the supreme court also commented on the importance of applying the public interest exception to these two sensitive issues because the injury of wrongful forced admission and medication are with litigants for the rest of their lives. The supreme court reversed the trial court decisions, overruling its Wetherton precedent, and holding that involuntary admissions and forced medication fall under the public interest exception to mootness.
[1] 435 P.3d 918 (Alaska 2019).
