Brief for Petitioner in No ord’s altered circumstances are immaterial to our resolution of this dispute, and we do not decide any questions that would arise if he were the only defendant. 10 Our analysis of the proper disposition of this case follows from our conclusion that government officials who secure a favorable judgment on immunity grounds may obtain our review of an adverse constitutional holding. See supra, at 708. As just noted, Munsingwear justified vacatur to protect a litigant who had the right to appeal but lost that opportunity due to happenstance. 340 U. S., at 39, 41. We have therefore left lower court decisions intact when mootness did not deprive the appealing party of any review to which he was entitled. See, e. g., U. S. Bancorp Mortgage Co., 513 U. S., at 25 (<HOLDING>); Karcher v. May, 484 U. S. 72, 83 (1987)
holding that the appealing party had sur rendered his claim to the equitable remedy of vacatur by settling the case and thus voluntarily forfeiting his legal remedy by the ordinary processes of appeal holding that the appellant had an adequate remedy by appeal for his discovery violation allegations holding that the remedy in a prison conditions case must remedy actual injuries that have been identified by the court and suffered by the plaintiffs recognizing constructive trust as appropriate equitable remedy holding that the illegality or unconstitutionality of a state or municipal tax or imposition is not of itself a ground for equitable relief in the courts of the united states in such a case the aggrieved party is left to his remedy at law when that remedy is as complete practicable and efficient as the remedy in equity