[alternatives?]

The state or organization can do what it wants, after several years when it gets to the Supreme Court steps, modify its policy, in Roberts view it is then moot. The next week, the state or organization modifies it back, maybe with a slight change, and then the plaintiff has to sue again.

[DPMD]

Although he could probably be defended for dissenting on the grounds that the case was moot - the plaintiff having graduated - it was more likely an act of cowardice, meant to shield him from the Chicago Way moves on the left and the scrutiny on the right. We’re entitled to a bit of courage in our SCOTUS critters.

[kiryandil]

“Demonic Moloch worshippers gonna worship Moloch”

[Sans-Culotte]

Souter part II. Roberts is now left of Kagan and Sotomayor.

[Petrosius]

Roberts, however, in his first solo dissent, wrote that the court was acting as “a moot court” in deciding this case and their ruling.

The plaintiff is seeking damages for past harm, not just relief, therefore the case is not moot. One would thing that the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court would understand this.

[zeugma]

I’m no fan of Roberts, and actually disagree quite strongly with him about his reasoning in this case. However, if you actually read his dissent it’s really nothing more than an argument about standing, not about the merits of the case. Even the opinion, authored by Thomas was really just a procedural one that said the individuals do, in fact, have standing to sue.

[VideoDoctor]

In 8-1 SCOTUS Ruling, Chief Justice John Roberts Is The Only One To Side Against Christian Students Whose Free Speech Was Trampled

The fact that ROBERTS was the ONLY dissenting vote tells me he's not only OUT of TOUCH with the American people but he's completely OUT OF SYNC with God Almighty.