In the case of United States v. Juvenile Male (2009), a juvenile was charged with sexual abuse on a federal Indian reservation, which he admitted to in court. He was sentenced under the Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act and placed into official custody until his 21st birthday. Afterward, he would be supervised for another two years while also adhering to special conditions aimed at sex offenders, including wearing an electronic monitoring device and participating in treatment programs. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that these additional requirements were unconstitutional as they exceeded what is allowed by the Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act since supervision had ended when he turned 21. The Supreme Court reversed this decision stating that it lacked jurisdiction because there wasn't an ongoing controversy; thus, making it moot due to the fact that by the time case reached them, juvenile male had already completed his period of supervision so any ruling wouldn’t have practical effect on him or modify any behavior or consequence.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Juvenile Male, Justice Sotomayor argued that the Supreme Court should not have reviewed this case because it was moot - the juvenile offender had already completed his supervised release period and thus any decision by the court would not affect him directly. She also disagreed with majority's interpretation of federal law to allow lifetime supervision of certain juvenile offenders without a hearing or other procedural protections. In her view, such an interpretation raises serious constitutional concerns under both Due Process Clause and Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments. Furthermore, she expressed concern about potential implications of ruling for juveniles' rights in general as well as its impact on future cases involving similar issues.