A. No, because there is a live controversy.
B. Yes, because the student lacks standing.
C. No, because a declaratory judgment is the improper vehicle.
D. Yes, because the student is now an eligible resident.
ANSWER: A. In the present case, there is a live controversy and the case is not moot. In light of this, a federal court would proceed to hear the case. As a federal court requires a live controversy at all stages, not just when the case is filed, it appears at first glance that the student's eligibility for resident tuition would render the case moot. However, the fact that this is a class action suit yields viable claims for those remaining within the class.
D is incorrect. The filing student's case may be moot, but there exist those within the class who are still eligible.
B is incorrect as standing is simply determined at the beginning of a suit, and requires a tangible stake in the outcome of the suit. The filing student did have such a stake; thereby, providing sufficient standing at the time of filing.
C is incorrect. Although a ruling for declaratory judgment does require a showing of ripeness, in the present case the state law is currently being enforced. Therefore, the issue is clearly ripe and a declaratory judgment is a proper vehicle.