until the 1989 crop year. Section 1301(a), id.
Defendants argue that the amendment moots this case both as a matter of law and as a matter of prudence. Neither argument is availing. The amendment will not be effective until the 1989 crop year. Until then, the present regulations apply and clearly are adversely affecting plaintiff's members.
As a prudential matter, defendants suggest this action should be dismissed because any decision of this Court is certain to be appealed and by the time the appellate court could review the regulations, the new regulations would be in effect. That argument concedes that this case is not mooted by the new amendments. Indeed, defendants acknowledge that this case "is not technically moot because the husband and wife regulations will be applicable for one more crop year."
In addition, it would be inappropriate for this Court, faced with a live controversy, to stay its hand merely in anticipation that its decision might be appealed and might, on appeal, be partially mooted by the implementation of the new regulations.
Defendants' suggestion that "whatever decision this Court had made concerning [the regulation's] validity and constitutionality will have to be vacated"
under the principle announced in United States v. Munsingwear, 340 U.S. 36, 39-40, 95 L. Ed. 36, 71 S. Ct. 104 (1950), is entirely speculative. This case is neither moot, nor should it be treated differently than any case where legislation will, at a future date, change the regulatory scheme. See Mississippi River Transmission Corp v. FERC, 245 U.S. App. D.C. 219, 759 F.2d 945, 952 n.9 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (quoting United States v. W.T. Grant Co., 345 U.S. 629, 632-33, 97 L. Ed. 1303, 73 S. Ct. 894 (1953); Save Our Cumberland Mountains, Inc. v. Clark, 233 U.S. App. D.C. 316, 725 F.2d 1422, 1431-32 (D.C. Cir. 1984).
For the reasons set forth above, it is accordingly hereby
ORDERED that defendants' motions to dismiss and for summary judgment are denied, and that plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is granted; it is
FURTHER ORDERED that Section 795.11 is declared unconstitutional, null, and void as a burden on the right to marry that is not rationally related to a legitimate government interest; it is
FURTHER ORDERED that defendants, their officers, employees, and agents, are permanently enjoined and restrained from refusing to allow husbands and wives to qualify as separate persons on the basis of Section 795.11; and it is
FURTHER ORDERED that the effect of this Memorandum Opinion and Judgment is stayed until April 18, 1988 to afford the parties opportunity to seek appellate relief.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
In accordance with the Memorandum Opinion issued this date, judgment is hereby entered in favor of plaintiff Women Involved in Farm Economics and against defendants United States Department of Agriculture and Richard Lyng, Secretary of the United States Department of Agriculture.
IT IS SO ORDERED.