potential mootness of a claim for declaratory relief, this court has explained that “the question is whether the facts alleged, under all the circumstances, show that there is a substantial controversy ... of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment.” Coal. for Gov’t Procurement v. Fed. Prison Indus., 365 F.3d 435, 459 (6th Cir.2004) (quoting Super Tire Eng’g Co. v. McCorkle, 416 U.S. 115, 122, 94 S.Ct. 1694, 40 L.Ed.2d 1 (1974) (quotation marks omitted)). The Workers argue that the district court’s decision is “fundamentally unjust” because the issue would not have been moot if the district court had rendered its decision in a timely manner. Although they justifiably lament the district court’s inordinate and inexplicable nine-year delay ) (<HOLDING>). The Workers’ constitutional claims are
holding that the governor did not have to obtain the consent of the senate for the appointment of a candidate when the first candidate had been rejected by the senate the senate was not in session at the time that the second candidate was appointed and because the legislature which created and therefore controlled the office did not require by statute that the governor seek the senates approval in those circumstances holding that the case was not moot even though claims for injunctive and declaratory relief were no longer alive because the plaintiff had requested pecuniary relief holding that because a resolution was no longer before the state senate and election results had already been voided under the resolution declaratory relief would have no effect on the parties current legal interests recognizing that the words without prejudice when used in an order or decree generally indicate that there has been no resolution of the controversy on its merits and leaves the issues in litigation open to another suit as if no action had ever been brought holding declaratory relief is inappropriate where the constitutional injury has already occurred and there is no threat of future harm