GOLDBERG, Circuit Judge
(dissenting) :
Abandoning the sometimes turbulent but relatively well-charted waters of jus- ticiability, the majority opinion in this case plunges into murky new depths of judicial abdication. Because I am unwilling to accompany my Brothers on this dangerous and unwise journey, I respectfully dissent.
In response to defendants-appellees’ initial challenge to plaintiff-appellant Merkey’s standing, the trial court held that Merkey “possessed the requisite interest in the outcome of this litigation as a member of Young Socialist Alliance so as to have a justiciable interest in its outcome.” Merkey v. Board of Regents, N.D.Fla.1972, 344 F.Supp. 1296, 1303 (emphasis added). Appellees have not challenged that holding on appeal, and I think it is clearly correct. As a member of YSA, Merkey has certainly alleged “that the challenged action has caused him injury in fact . . . . ” Association of Data Processing Service Organizations v. Camp, 1970, 397 U.S. 150, 152, 90 S.Ct. 827, 829, 25 L.Ed.2d 184, 187.
The Supreme Court in Data Processing emphasized that apart from the “case” or “controversy” test, the question of standing concerns “the question whether the interest sought to be protected by the complainant is arguably within the zone of interests to be protected ... by the statute or constitutional guarantee in question.” 397 U.S. at 153, 90 S.Ct. at 830, 25 L.Ed.2d at 188. The Court also recognized that standing may stem from an injury to noneconomic values, such as those arising from the First Amendment. 397 U. S. at 154, 90 S.Ct. at 830, 25 L.Ed.2d at 188.
Merkey has alleged that the action of the appellees in refusing .to recognize the YSA as a campus organization denies the plaintiffs, including the organization itself, certain First Amendment rights as well as .rights of procedural due process and equal protection of the law. Although the YSA has both student and non-student members, the action of defendantsappellees in denying recognition to the YSA was not based on the fact that the group has some non-student members. Merkey — who as a former student and employee of the university is certainly no officious, disinterested interloper— pursues this litigation as a member of the YSA, on its behalf. The constitutional values he seeks to vindicate, especially freedom of speech and association, are shared by all members of the group, including the students. Proceeding as he is on behalf of the YSA, Merkey has a sufficient stake in the outcome of the controversy “to ensure that ‘the dispute sought to be adjudicated will be preserved in an adversary context and in a form historically viewed as capable of judicial resolution.’ Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 101, 88 S.Ct. 1942, 1953, 20 L.Ed.2d 947, 962.” Sierra Club v. Morton, 1972, 405 U.S. 727, 732, 92 S.Ct. 1361, 1364, 31 L.Ed.2d 636, 641.
If, as I believe, the district court’s holding on the issue of Merkey’s standing is correct, I cannot understand the reasoning that leads my Brothers to conclude that the case is moot. “An issue becomes moot and hence no longer justiciable where as a result of intervening circumstances there are no longer adverse parties with sufficient legal interests to maintain the litigation.” Hollon v. Mathis Independent School District, 5 Cir. 1974, 491 F.2d 92, 93, citing 6A Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 57.13 at 57-128 (2d ed. 1973). The exact contours of the mootness doctrine may sometimes be shrouded in fog, but it takes no special lighthouse to recognize that in the instant case no intervening circumstances have reduced the adverse position of the parties or depreciated their legal interests in the litigation. The case stands in exactly the same posture today as it did the day it was filed.
Today, as then, Merkey is a member of the YSA, and a former employee and student at the university. Today, as then, the YSA has student members, seeks recognition as a campus organization, and has been denied that recognition. There has been no subsequent remedial action. There has been no change in the procedures followed, and most significantly, there has been no change in the decision denying recognition to YSA. Under any interpretation of the words, there remains a “subject matter on which the judgment of this Court could operate.” St. Pierre v. United States, 1943, 319 U.S. 41, 42, 63 S.Ct. 910, 911, 87 L.Ed. 1199, 1201; Troy State University v. Dickey, 5 Cir. 1968, 402 F.2d 515, 516. 3
Neither the majority opinion nor my own study of the record in this case convinces me that there has been any fundamental change in the “particularized . . . fact situation from which this suit arose.” United States Servicemen’s Fund v. Killeen Independent School District, 5 Cir. 1974, 489 F.2d 693, 694. Nor have events put these arguments to rest. Doremus v. Board of Education, 1952, 342 U.S. 429, 72 S.Ct. 394, 396, 96 L.Ed. 475. For all I can determine, there continues to exist “a real and substantial controversy admitting of specific relief through a decree of a conclusive character, as distinguished from an opinion advising what the law would be upon a hypothetical state of facts.” North Carolina v. Rice, 1971, 404 U.S. 244, 246, 92 S.Ct. 402, 404, 30 L.Ed.2d 413, 415-416, citing Aetna Life Insurance Co. v. Haworth, 1937, 300 U.S. 227, 240-241, 57 S.Ct. 461, 81 L.Ed. 617. I would, therefore, review the decision of the trial court on the merits.
Mootness is a jurisdictional precept, founded on the requirement of Article III of the Constitution that predicates the exercise of federal judicial power on the existence of a case or controversy. North Carolina v. Rice, supra. In Kil-leen Independent School District, supra, and National Lawyers Guild v. Board of Regents, 5 Cir. 1974, 490 F.2d 97, this Court went to the nethermost reaches of legitimate non-justiciability. Today the Court passes the last milepost of mootness as a constitutional command, and makes it what it was most certainly never meant to be — a haven for indecision.
. The majority mentions the failure to appeal the trial court’s denial of class action status. The named plaintiffs were Merkey and the YSA, although another member of the organization named Lieberman had joined with Merkey in making the original application for recognition on behalf of YSA. Plaintiffs sought to represent a class consisting of all students in state universities in Florida who are required to obtain official recognition for campus organizations. The trial court found that Merkey, as a non-student, was not a member of the class he purported to represent, and also concluded that the possibility of significant differences of fact and law made a class action unwise. This conclusion in no way affected the right of Merkey and the YSA to proceed on behalf of the members of that organization at Florida State University.
. The original YSA application was made in March 1970. The first complaint was filed in June 1970, but that cause was ultimately dismissed after this Court had reversed the trial court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim. At the time of the YSA application and the filing of the suit, Merkey was a staff employee of the university. According to Merkey’s deposition taken in May 1972, record at 66-67, his staff position was terminated for budgetary reasons in February 1972, or about the time plaintiffs’ amended complaint was filed. I do not believe that any change in his employment status renders the case moot. He acted then, and continues to act, primarily on behalf of the organization itself and its members. If he has standing, the case cannot be moot. Moreover, the YSA itself remains a party to the action, and changes in Merkey’s individual status can hardly affect the organization’s position in the case.
In any event, it is clear to me that the majority believes that the case has become moot during the pendency of the appeal rather than between the time of application and the time of trial. In support of the order to vacate and remand with instructions that the district court dismiss the case as moot, the majority cites United States v. Munsingwear, 1950, 340 U.S. 36, 71 S.Ct. 104, 95 L.Ed. 36; National Lawyers Guild v. Board of Regents, 5 Cir. 1974, 490 F.2d 97, and New Left Education Project v. Board of Regents, 5 Cir. 1973, 472 F.2d 218. In all three cases something happened during the pendency of the appeal to render the controversy moot. I submit that nothing of the kind has happened here.
. The Dielcey case is instructive. There, plaintiff, a former student newspaper editor, challenged tire refusal of the university to readmit him for the fall semester because of his refusal to follow instructions to publish a certain editorial. Because he subsequently decided not to re-enroll in the university, the only relief he had sought, this court concluded that the case had become moot. Here, by contrast, the change in Merkey’s individual status as student has occasioned no change in the relief being sought, recognition of the YSA, and has done nothing to alter the concreteness of the fundamental controversy between the parties.
