Here are the supplemental briefs of the state petitioner and private petitioner in No. 05-1589, Davenport, responding to the amendment to the state statute that I noted here.
Both petitioners argue that the case is not moot and that the Court should proceed to decide the case as it otherwise would have, even though its judgment now will only have retrospective application, perhaps only in this one particular case (and perhaps not even that, if the union were to prevail on the state-law question of good faith).
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY