Nathaniel Raiford v. Amy Anthony, Director of, Division of Motor Vehicles

• Court: Supreme Court of Delaware
• Decided: March 24, 2026
• Docket: 190, 2025
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

NATHANIEL RAIFORD, § § No. 190, 2025 Petitioner Below, § Appellant, § Court Below–the Superior § Court of the State of v. § Delaware § AMY ANTHONY, Director of § C.A. No. N24A-11-003 THE DELAWARE DIVISION OF § MOTOR VEHICLES, § § Respondent Below, § Appellee. §

Submitted: January 20, 2026 Decided: March 24, 2026

Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; TRAYNOR, and GRIFFITHS, Justices.

ORDER

After careful consideration of the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal, it

appears to the Court that:

(1) Nathaniel Raiford appeals from a Superior Court order affirming the

Court of Common Pleas’ dismissal of his case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

This litigation began on January 5, 2024. In the early morning hours, Corporal Brian

Ritchie of the Delaware State Police Department clocked Raiford’s vehicle

exceeding the posted speed limit. He pulled Raiford’s vehicle over. While

conducting the traffic stop, Corporal Ritchie began to suspect that Raiford was driving under the influence (“DUI”).1 Corporal Ritchie administered, and Raiford

failed, multiple field sobriety tests. Corporal Ritchie arrested Raiford and

transported him to Delaware State Police Troop 2. Once there, Raiford took an

Intoxilyzer breath test.2 Raiford’s blood alcohol concentration registered .099,

exceeding the legal limit.3 Raiford was charged with DUI.

(2) When an individual is charged with DUI, two separate proceedings

follow – a criminal prosecution and a civil administrative proceeding. Although this

appeal arises from Raiford’s administrative proceeding, the timeline of the criminal

prosecution is relevant to this appeal. Accordingly, we discuss both below.4

(3) After charging Raiford with DUI, Corporal Ritchie gave Raiford a copy

of an “Official Notice and Order of Revocation.”5 This notice informed Raiford that

the Department of Transportation Secretary sought to revoke his driving privileges

– administratively through the Division of Motor Vehicles (the “Division”) – for a

period of three months. It also informed Raiford that he had a right to challenge the

1 Raiford v. State, 2025 WL 816638, at *1 (Del. Super. Mar. 13, 2025), aff’d, 2025 WL 3707581 (Del. Dec. 22, 2025). 2 Id. 3 Id. 4 App. to State’s Crim. Answering Br. at B1–2 (Com. Pl. Ct. Dkt.), Raiford v. State, No. 153, 2025 (Del.) [hereinafter “Crim. B__”]. 5 App. to Raiford’s Opening Br. at A55 [hereinafter “A__”] (Official Notice & Order of Revocation dated Jan. 5, 2024).

2 revocation at a hearing.6 Raiford, through counsel, submitted a timely request to the

Division for an administrative hearing.7 On the day of the hearing, no one appeared

except for the Hearing Officer.8 The Hearing Officer issued her ruling on a template

form, advising Raiford that his driving privileges would be revoked for three months

“based on [his] failure to appear for the hearing.”9 Raiford’s three-month revocation

began on July 28, 2024.10 Around the same time, Raiford was found guilty of DUI

after a criminal trial.11 Raiford’s criminal sentence included, among other things, a

twelve-month revocation of his driving privileges.12

(4) In August 2024, Raiford filed a civil notice of appeal and a motion to

stay his three-month revocation in the Court of Common Pleas.13 The Court of

Common Pleas denied Raiford’s motion to stay his license revocation.14 Raiford

moved for re-argument.15 The Director of the Division, Amy Anthony (the

6 Id.; see also 21 Del. C. § 2742(d). 7 A58 (Req. for Admin. Hr’g dated Jan. 12, 2024). 8 A90 (Admin. Hr’g Disposition dated July 9, 2024). 9 Id.; see also A72 (Notice of Impending Revocation dated July 24, 2024). 10 A71 (Official Notice of Revocation dated July 24, 2024). 11 Crim. B152–53 (Com. Pl. Ct. Tr. dated July 25, 2024, at 150:15–151:4). 12 Id. 13 A129–30 (Notice of Appeal dated Aug. 7, 2024); A132–A136 (Mot. to Stay License Suspension dated Aug. 7, 2024). 14 A138 (Ct. Order dated Aug. 16, 2024) (relying on 21 Del. C. § 2744, which states that “the appeal shall not operate as a stay of the revocation of that person’s license, permit or privilege to drive”). 15 A140–44 (Mot. for Rearg. dated Aug. 21, 2024).

3 “Director”), responded to Raiford’s appeal and motion for re-argument by filing a

motion to dismiss.16

(5) On October 28, 2024, Raiford’s three-month revocation ended.17 Four

days later, the Court of Common Pleas granted the Director’s motion to dismiss

Raiford’s civil appeal.18 The Superior Court affirmed the dismissal of Raiford’s civil

appeal, and he appealed to this Court.19 At the same time, the Superior Court

affirmed Raiford’s criminal conviction and Raiford again appealed to this Court.20

(6) On July 25, 2025, Raiford’s twelve-month revocation ended. This

Court affirmed Raiford’s criminal conviction on December 22, 2025.21 Because

affirming Raiford’s criminal conviction resulted in a revocation notation on his

driving record, we requested that the parties file supplemental memoranda to address

whether Raiford’s civil appeal was moot.22

(7) After reviewing the supplemental memoranda, we agree with the State

that Raiford’s appeal is moot. “According to the mootness doctrine, although there

16 A44–53 (Mot. to Dismiss & Resp. in Opp’n to Mot. for Rearg. dated Aug. 23, 2024). 17 It is unclear from the record whether, after the three-month revocation ended, Raiford completed the necessary requirements to reinstate his driving privileges. 18 Raiford v. Anthony, 2024 WL 4647889, at *2–3 & n.16 (Del. Com. Pl. Nov. 1, 2024). 19 Raiford v. Anthony, 2025 WL 991111, at *2 (Del. Super. Apr. 2, 2025). Raiford, 2025 WL 816638, at *4; Notice of Appeal, Raiford v. State, 153, 2025 (Apr. 11, 2025), 20

Dkt. No. 1. 21 Raiford v. State, 2025 WL 3707581, at *1 (Del. Dec. 22, 2025). 22 Ct. Letter to Pet’r & Resp’t (Jan. 6, 2026).

4 may have been a justiciable controversy at the time the litigation was commenced,

the action will be dismissed if that controversy ceases to exist.”23 “A controversy

may become moot either [1] because a party has lost standing to assert its merits or

[2] because the dispute is no longer amenable to judicial resolution.”24 Because

neither party disputes that Raiford retains standing, we turn to the second basis for

mootness.

(8) Raiford’s civil appeal is moot as it is “no longer amenable to judicial

resolution”25 because the “grant of relief ‘cannot have any practical effect on the

existing controversy.’”26 The best relief that Raiford could achieve in this case is

the reversal of his three-month revocation. This relief would have no “practical

effect” because the three-month revocation ended in October 2024. And even if we

required the removal of the civil revocation notation from Raiford’s Delaware

driving record, the criminal revocation notation for his DUI remains.

23 Gen. Motors Corp. v. New Castle Cnty., 701 A.2d 819, 823 (Del. 1997). 24 Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Aetos Corp., 809 A.2d 575, 582 (Del. 2002). 25 Id. 26 NAMA Holdings, LLC v. Related World Mkt. Ctr., LLC, 922 A.2d 417, 435 (Del. Ch. 2007) (quoting The Library, Inc. v. AFG Enters., Inc., 1998 WL 474159, at *2 (Del. Ch. July 27, 1998)).

5 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that this appeal is DISMISSED as

moot.27

BY THE COURT:

/s/ N. Christopher Griffiths Justice

27 Although we find this matter moot today, we note that the Division’s legal interpretation of § 2742(d) and (f) gives us pause. A State agency’s interpretation of a statute it enforces is only afforded judicial deference when it is “reasonable” and does “not contradict the plain language of the statute.” Wilson v. Gingerich Concrete & Masonry, 285 A.3d 445, 455 (Del. 2022) (citation omitted). The plain language of subsections (d) and (f) does not indicate that a petitioner implicitly withdraws his or her timely request for a DMV hearing when the petitioner fails to appear for the hearing. Indeed, there is no subsection in § 2742 – or § 2744 for that matter – that supports the Division’s interpretation.