FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT MARCH 21, 2005 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK

* Honora ble J ane A . Restani, Chief Judg e, United States Court of International Trade , sitti ngby designation. [ P UB L I S H]

I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 03- 15593

________________________ D. C. Do c k e tNo . 0 1 - 0 3 0 3 9 - CV- J LK N A T I O N A L A D V E R T I S I N G C O ., P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s C I T Y O F M I A M I , M I A M I - D A D E C O U N T Y , F L O R I D A , D e f e n d a n ts - A p p e lle e s .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe S outhe r n D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( M A R C H 21, 2005) B e f or e E D M O N D S O N , C hi e f J udge , W I L S O N , C i r c ui tJ udge , a nd R E S T A N I *, Judg e.2

P E R C U R I A M: In th is ca se , w e d ec id e w h eth era b il lb o ar d co m p an y’s c h allen g e to a C ity’s z o n in g o r d in a n c e is r e n d e r e d m o o t b y th e s u b s e q u e n t a m e n d m e n t o f th e o r d in a n c e . P l ai nt i ff -A pp el l antN at i on al A dv ert i si ng C om pany (“ N at i on al ”) appeal s the di stri ct c our t ’ s or de rgr a nt i ng f

i na l s um m a r y j udgm e nti n f a vorof D e f e nda nt - A ppe l l e e , the C ity o f M iam i. N atio n al b ro u g h t su itag ain st th e C ity, claim in g th at th e C ity’s Z on i ng C od e vi ol at ed the F i rs tand F ou rt ee nth A m endm ent s t o the U ni t ed S t at es C on st i tut i on by i m perm i ss i bl y i nfri ng i ng up on the fr ee spee ch ri gh t s of N at i on al a nd i t s a dve r t i s e r s . W e a r e c onvi nc e d tha ta m e ndm e nt s t o the C i ty ’ s z oni ng c ode r e nde r e d thi s c a s e m oota nd w e the r e f or e r e ve r s e the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s gr a ntof s um m a r y j udgm e ntw i th i ns truc t i ons t o di s m i s s the c a s e f orl a c k of

j ur i s di c t i on. F AC T UA L AN D P R OC E DU R AL B AC KG R OU ND I n M a r c h of

1990, the C i ty of

M i a m i a dopt e d a c om pr e he ns i ve Z oni ng O r di na nc e tha ti s the s ubj e c tm a tt e rof thi s s ui t . O r di na nc e N o. 11, 000 di vi de d the C i ty i nt o 24 ge ogr aphi c a l a r e a s a nd e na c t e d a c om pr e he ns i ve s c he m e of re gu l at i on s app l i cabl e t o p roperty l ocat ed i n eac h are a. T he ordi nance w as enac t ed w i th, a m ong othe rgoa l s , the purpos e s of “ pr om ot [ i ng] the publ i c he a l th [ a nd] s a f e ty . . . pr ovi d[ i ng] a w hol e s om e , s e r vi c e a bl e , a nd a ttr a c t i ve c om m uni ty ” a nd3

“in c r e a s [ in g ] tr a f

f ic s a f e ty .” M ia m i, F la ., Z o n in g O r d in a c e § 1 2 0 ( 1 9 9 1 ) . W h ile th e zo n i n g co d e g o v ern ed al l asp ect s o f l an d u se w i th i n th e M i am i C i ty l i m i t s, som e r egul at i on s f

ocused on bi l l bo ar ds and si gn s throu gh ou tthe C i ty. H ow ever , th e C ity p r o v id e d a g r a c e p e r io d o f f iv e y e a r s f

o ra d v e r tis e r s , lik e N a tio n a l, w ith ex i st i n g stru ctu res al read y erect ed t o rem o v e n o n co n fo rm i n g b i l l b o ard s. N a t i ona l i s a D e l a w a r e c orpor a t i on a nd a w hol l y - ow ne d s ubs i di a r y of V ia c o m O u td o o rI n c ., a c o rp o r a tio n f o r m e r ly k n o w n a s I n f

in ity O u td o o r , I n c . N a t i ona l i s a l e a de ri n the out doora dve r t i s i ng i ndus tr y , s pe c i a l i z i ng i n the l e a s i ng of bi l l bo ar ds, and h as op er at ed i n M i am i for app roxi m at el y f orty y ea rs . N at i on al no rm al l y c on struct s i t s bi l l bo ar ds on ei ther l ea se d o r purchas ed prop erty a nd then r e n ts s p a c e o n th e b illb o a r d s to a d v e r tis e r s . N a tio n a l o p e r a te s m o r e th a n f o r ty o u t d o o r ad v ert i si n g si g n s i n v ari o u s l o cat i o n s th ro u g h o u tth e C i ty o f M i am i . M o st of N at i on al ’ s bi l l bo ar ds di spl ay com m er ci al m es sa ges, ho w evera f ew of them d i sp l ay n o n -co m m erci al , p u b l i c i n t erestm essag es. A ftern ea rly a d ec ad e o f n o n -e n fo rc em en t o f th e Z o n in g O rd in an ce ’s bi l l boa r d pr ovi s i ons , i n A pr i l 2001 the C i ty c om m e nc e d e nf or c e m e ntby i s s ui ng n o tic e s to p r o p e r ty o w n e r s w h o h a d n o n c o n f o r m in g b illb o a r d s o n th e irp r o p e r ty . T h e n o ti ce s a d v ised th e p ro p er ty o w n er s th at th ey w er e in v io lati o n o f th e C ity’s zoni ng code and t ol d the ow ners t o corre ctthe vi ol at i on s by M ay 20 01 , or fa ceIn addition to this case , National also filed a second suit ag ainst the City . That ca se, 1 National Advertising Co. v. City of Miami , Case No. 02- 20556-CIV-KI NG (“ National II ”), w as fi le d o n F ebr

ua ry 21 , 2 00 2 in

re sp on seto t

heCity ’sre

je c tio n o f s e ven p e rmit a

pp lic atio ns to construct billboards. Nation al Iand Nation al IIwere consolidate d in the district court below. However, weordered the c ases to be a rgued sepa

rate ly before this court. In this case weasked the par ties to focus solely

on the constitutionality

of the zoning ordinanceitself. In the companion ca se, Nation al II , the par ties wereasked to discuss the issues re lated to the per mitti ng p ro c e s s i ni t s e nt i r e ty. 4 f in e s a n d o th e rp e n a ltie s b r o u g h t b y th e C ity ’s C o d e E n f o r c e m e n t B o a r d . O n J u ly 10 , 20 01 , the M i am i C i ty C om m i ss i on autho ri ze d the C i ty m anager t o arr ange a C o m m is s io n m e e tin g w h e r e th e C ity C o m m is s io n c o u ld m a k e f in d in g s th a t w o u ld j us t i f y the C i ty ’ s r e m ova l of

bi l l boa r ds w i thoutnot i c e a nd t o hol d out door ad v ert i si n g co m p an i es i n co n t em p to f th e C i ty C o m m i ssi o n . T h e n ex td ay, N a tio n a l f

ile d th is a c tio n in d is tr ic t c o u r t. W h ile N a tio n a l e n g a g e s in 1 predom i nant l y c om m er ci al advert i si ng , i t s c om pl ai nti nv ok ed the fr ee spee ch ov erbrea dth d octri ne and al l eged thatthe C i ty’ s Z on i ng O rdi nance di sc ri m i nat ed a g a in s t n o n - c o m m e r c ia l s p e e c h in v io la tio n o f th e F ir s t a n d F o u r te e n th A m e n d m e n ts , la c k e d p r o c e d u r a l s a f e g u a r d s in v io la tio n o f

th e F ir s t A m e n d m e n t, a nd tha tthe C i ty ’ s de c i s i on t o be gi n i m m e di a t e r e m ova l of s i gns vi ol a t e d D ue P r o c e s s a n d th e F ir s t A m e n d m e n t. S h o r tly a f

te rf ilin g its c o m p la in t, N a tio n a l m o v e d f o ra n in ju n c tio n to p r e v e n t th e C ity o f

M ia m i f r o m a c tin g to r e m o v e s ig n s o re n f o r c e th e o r d in a n c e . T he di stri ctcourtdeni ed N at i on al ’ s m ot i on for i nj un ct i ve re l i ef , and N at i on alAlthough N ational’s amended complaint adde d the County as a pa rty , the re cord makes 2 no menti on

of a pp e ara nc e s b y theCounty

and they did no t a pp e ar b e fo reus on

a pp e al. Thereis some dispute as to when the process of amendingthe City ’s zoning ordina nce 3 be g an. Ho wever, sin c ewec on c ludethat th eCity ha s n o intenti on

of re -enac tingthealle g e dly unconstitutional segments of the zoning code , we ne ed not dec ide what initially motivated the City ’s comprehensive overhaul of its entirezoning ordinanc e. 5 ap p e a le d . I n a n u n p u b lis h e d o p in io n , N a t ’ l A dv e r . C o . v . C i t

y o f Mi a mi , 48 F e d. A pp x. 74 0, 20 02 W L 31 05 48 93 (11t h C i r. A ug 27 , 20 02 ), w e vac at ed the di stri ct court ’ s deni al of N at i on al ’ s m ot i on and rem anded t o the di stri ctcourtfor f urther consi dera t i on . T here af

t er , N at i on al am ended i t s c om pl ai nt , al l egi ng three new c l a i m s . N a t i ona l a s s e r t e d ( 1) tha tthe C i ty ’ s r e f us a l t o s t a y the a c c rua l of c ode enforce m entfi nes duri ng the pend ency of l i t i gat i on di sc ri m i nat ed agai nstN at i on al f ori t s e xe r c i s e of

i t s F i r s ta nd F our t e e nth A m e ndm e ntr i ght s , ( 2) tha tthe d i scri m i n at o ry act s o f th e C i ty an d M i am i -D ad e C o u n ty v i o l at ed th e F i rst A m e ndm e nta nd the E qua l P r ot e c t i on C l a us e , a nd ( 3) tha tthe C i ty a nd the C o u n ty ’s la c k o f

p r o c e d u r a l s a f

e g u a r d s v io la te th e F ir s t A m e n d m e n t. 2 A ddi t i ona l l y , N a t i ona l s oughta nothe ri nj unc t i on. A ft er N at i o n al fi l ed i t s fi rstsu i tag ai n stth e C i ty, th e C i ty b eg an th e p ro cess of a m e ndi ng i t s z oni ng r e gul a t i ons pe r t a i ni ng t o s i gns . O n J a nua r y 5, 2002 the 3 C i ty p u b l i sh ed n o t i ce o f i t s i n t en tt o am en d th e Z o n i n g o rd i n an ce an d th o se a m e ndm e nt s w e r e a dopt e d on A pr i l 11, 2002. T he a m e ndm e nt s c ha nge d m a ny6

as pect s of the C i ty’ s s i gn code bu tspec i fi ca l l y c l ar i fi ed thatno n-com m er ci al s pe e c h m a y be pl a c e d on a ny s i gn w he r e c om m e r c i a l s pe e c h w a s pe r m i tt e d. In S ept em ber 200 3, the di stri ctcourtent er ed an order grant i ng sum m ary j ud gm entt o the C i ty of M i am i and d enyi ng N at i on al ’ s m ot i on for s um m ary j udgm e nt . T he di s tr i c tc our the l d tha tN a t i ona l l a c ke d s t a ndi ng unde rthe o v e rb r e a d th d o c tr in e to e n f o r c e th e r ig h ts o f

n o n - c o m m e r c ia l s p e a k e r s . A dd i t i on al l y, the courthel d that , as sum i ng N at i on al di d h ave s t andi ng t o enforce the r i ght s of

non- c om m e r c i a l s pe a ke r s , the z oni ng or di na nc e di d notvi ol a t e the F ir s t A m e n d m e n t. ST AN DA RD OF RE VI EW T h e C ity c o n ten d s th at th e c h an g es to th e Z o n in g C o d e r en d erN atio n al’s c l a i m s m oot . M ootne s s i s the c e ntr a l i s s ue i n thi s c a s e a nd “ [ w ] e r e vi e w the q u est i o n o f m o o tn ess de no vo . ” C o ra l S p ri n gs S t . S

ys. , In c. v. C i t

y o f Su n rise , 371 F . 3d 13 20 , 13 28 (11t h C i r. 20 04 ) ( i nt ernal ci t at i on s om i tt ed). F urtherm ore, be c a us e the que s t i on of m ootne s s s i s j ur i s di c t i ona l i n na tur e , i tm a y be r a i s e d by th e c o u r t s u a s

p o n te , r e ga r dl e s s of

w he the rthe di s tr i c tc our tc ons i de r e d i tori f the p a r tie s b r ie f

e d th e is s u e . Sa nn on v. U ni t ed Stat es , 6 3 1 F .2 d 1 2 4 7 , 1 2 5 0 ( 5 thIn Bo nn e r v . Ci ty of Pricha rd, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 ( 11th Cir.1981) (en ba nc), this Court 4 a dopte d a s b indingpre c e dent all de c isi on s o f t hefo rm e r F if

th C irc uit ha nd e d down p ri or

to c los e of business on September 30, 1981. 7 C i r. 19 80 ). 4 DI S C US S I ON W e ha ve l ong r e c ogni z e d tha tthe C ons t i tut i on l i m i t s the j ur i s di c t i on of fe dera l court s. T he U ni t ed S t at es C on st i tut i on , A rt i cl e I II , S ec t i on 2, prov i des that th e j u d i ci al p o w er o f th e U n t i ed S t at es fed eral co u rt s sh al l ex t en d o n l y t o “ cases” and “ cont rovers i es . ” C or al Spr i ngs , 371 F . 3d a t1327 ( c i t i ng L uj an v . D e f e nde rs of W ild life , 504 U . S . 555, 559, 112 S . C t . 2130, 2136, 119 L . E d. 2d 351 ( 1992) ) . T he A rt i cl e I II ca se or cont rovers y l i m i t at i on on the j uri sdi ct i on of fe dera l court s s erves a n im p o r ta n t r o le in o u rc o n s titu tio n a l s e p a r a tio n o f p o w e r s f

r a m e w o r k , So ci a l ist W orke rs P ar t

y v . L e ahy , 1 4 5 F . 3 d 1 2 4 0 , 1 2 4 4 (1 1 th C i r. 1 9 9 8 ), an d i ti s a f u n d a m e n ta l p r in c ip le o f o u rf o r m o f d e m o c r a tic g o v e r n m e n t th a t th e r o le o f c o u r ts i s properl y al i m i t ed on e. T hu s, w e s tri ct l y observe the ca se s or c on trovers i es lim ita tio n . A l l e n v . W

r i ght , 468 U . S . 737, 750, 104 S . C t . 3315, 3324, 82 L . E d2d 5 5 6 ( 1 9 8 4 ) . M ootne s s i s a m ong the i m por t a ntl i m i t a t i ons pl a c e d on the pow e rof the fe dera l j ud i ci ary a nd se rves l on g-es t abl i shed no t i on s abo utthe rol e of unel ec t ed court s i n o ur dem ocra t i c s ys t em . B y i t s very nature, a m oo tsui t“ ca nn otpres entan8

A rt i cl e I II ca se or cont rovers y a nd the fe dera l court s l ac k subj ec tm att er j uri sdi ct i on t o ent ert ai n i t . ” C or al Spr i ngs , 371 F . 3d a t1328 ( i nt e r na l c i t a t i ons om i tt e d) . I f

a l a w s ui ti s m oot e d by s ubs e que ntde ve l opm e nt s , a ny de c i s i on a fe dera l courtm i gh tre nd eron the m er i t s of aca se w ou l d con st i tut e a n adv i sory o p in io n . See i d . ; Al N

a jja rv . A s h c r o

ft , 27 3 F . 3d 13 30 , 13 36 (11t h C i r. 20 01 ); So c ia lis t W

o rke rs P a r ty , 145 F . 3d a t1244. A c ha nge i n the l a w , s uc h a s a m e ndi ng a z o n in g o r d in a n c e a s h e r e , o ra c h a n g e in o th e rc ir c u m s ta n c e s c a n g iv e r is e to m ootne s s . W e ha ve he l d tha t“ [ w ] he n a s ubs e que ntl a w br i ngs the e xi s t i ng cont rovers y t o an end the ca se becom es m oo tand sho ul d b e tre at ed ac cordi ng l y. ” C o a litio n fo rth e A b o litio n o f M a r iju a n a P r o h ib itio n v . C ity o f A tla n ta , 219 F . 3d 1 3 0 1 , 1 3 1 0 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) . I n o th e rw o r d s , f e d e r a l c o u r ts la c k ju r is d ic tio n to h e a ra n d d e c id e c a s e s w h e r e c h a n g e s in th e la w h a v e r e n d e r e d th e c a s e m o o t. A c c or di ngl y , w e m us tde c i de w he the rthe C i ty of M i a m i ’ s s ubs e que nt am endm ent s t o i t s z on i ng ordi nance re nd erN at i on al ’ s l egal chal l enges m oo t . If th e zo n i n g o rd i n an ce am en d m en t s h av e ren d ered th i s su i tm o o t , th en w e m u st di s m i s s the c a s e f

orl a c k of

j ur i s di c t i on. T hi s C our ta nd the S upr e m e C our tha ve r e pe a t e dl y he l d tha tthe r e pe a l or a m e ndm e ntof

a n a l l e ge dl y unc ons t i tut i ona l s t a tut e m oot s l e ga l c ha l l e nge s t o the l e gi t i m a c y of

the r e pe a l e d l e gi s l a t i on. F ore xa m pl e , i n C or al Spr i ngs w e not ed thatWe catalog ed many of the SupremeCourt decisions on this subject in our Coral Spri ngs 5 decision: See, e .g. , Lewis v. Cont'l Bank Corp. , 4 9 4 U . S . 4 7 2 , 4 7 4 , 1 1 0 S . C t . 1 2 4 9 , 1 2 5 2 , 1 0 8 L. Ed.2d 400 (1990) (holding that a Commerce Clause -base d challeng e to Florida banking statut e s w a s re nd e re d mo ot b y amendmentsto t

helaw) ; Massachusetts v. Oakes , 491 U.S. 576, 582-83, 109 S. Ct. 2633, 2637-38, 105 L . Ed.2d 493 (1989) (holding that a n ov e rb re a dth

c halleng eto a

c hil d p or no gra phy law w a s re nd e re d mo ot b y amendment to thestatut e ); Princ e ton Un iv . v. S c hm id, 4 5 5 U . S . 1 0 0 , 1 0 3 , 1 0 2 S . C t . 8 6 7 , 8 6 9 , 7 0 L. Ed.2d 855 (1982) (

per curiam ) (holdingthat the challeng e to a univer sity regulation was moo t be c a

us ethere gulatio n h a d b e e n s ub sta nti ally amend e d) ; Kremens v. Bartley , 431 U. S. 1 19 , 1 28 -2 9, 97 S. Ct . 1 70 9, 17 15 , 5 2 L . E d. 2d 18 4 ( 19 77 ) (ho ldingmoo t a constitutional challeng e to a statestatute g overningthe involuntary commitment of mentally ill mi nors, bec ause thelaw had be en replace d with a different statute) ; Diffenderfer v. Cent. Baptist C hurch, Inc . , 4 0 4 U . S . 4 1 2 , 4 1 5 , 9 2 S . C t . 5 7 4 , 5 7 6 , 3 0 L. Ed.2d 567 (1972) (holding moot a c halleng e to a F lorida tax ex emption for church proper ty when the la

w had be en repeale d). Coral Spri ngs , 371 F.3d at 1329 9 “ [ g] e ne r a l l y , a c ha l l e nge t o the c ons t i tut i ona l i ty of as t a tut e i s m oot e d by r e pe a l of the s t a tut e . ” 371 F . 3d a t1329. S i m i l a r l y , i n C oal i t i on f orthe A bol i t i on of M ar i j uana P r ohi bi t i on , w e he l d tha t“ w he n a n or di na nc e i s r e pe a l e d by the e na c tm e ntof

a s upe r s e di ng s t a tut e , the n the ‘ s upe r s e di ng s t a tut e orr e gul a t i on m oot s a c a s e . ’ ” 219 F . 3d a t1310 ( quot i ng N atur is t Soc ’ y, I nc . v . F i l l

y ay , 958 F . 2d 15 15 , 15 20 (11t h C i r. 19 92 )) . F urtherm ore, the S up re m e C ou rthas m any t i m es h e ld th a t a m e n d m e n ts o rr e v o c a tio n o f c h a lle n g e d le g is la tio n r e n d e r s th e la w s u it m oota nd de pr i ve s the c our tof j ur i s di c t i on. 5 N a tio n a l a r g u e s th a t th e C ity o f M ia m i’s v o lu n ta r y c e s s a tio n o f th e ir a lle g e d ly u n c o n s titu tio n a l c o n d u c t d o e s n o t r e n d e rN a tio n a l’s c h a lle n g e m o o t. N a t i ona l c l a i m s tha tthi s c a s e f a l l s w i thi n one of

the i m por t a nte xc e pt i ons t o the c a s e orc ontr ove r s y l i m i t a t i ons on f e de r a l c our t s ’ j ur i s di c t i on be c a us e of theMiami amended its sign code six months after beingsued by

National. Whatever

impact 6 this fact might have, it was not e xpressly argued by

National. F urthermore, other evidenc e persuades us that Miami did not amend its sign codeto deprive this Court of jurisdiction. 10 p o s s ib ility th a t, if

th e c o u r t d o e s n o t ru le o n th e o r d in a n c e , th e C ity w ill s im p ly re enac tthe chal l enged o rdi nance atsom e l at erdat e. W hi l e our general rul e i s that re peal of a s t atut e r enders a l egal chal l enge m oo t , an i m po rt antexce pt i on t o that ge ne r a l rul e i s tha tm e r e vol unt a r y t e r m i na t i on of a n a l l e ge dl y i l l e ga l a c t i vi ty i s not a l w a y s s uf

f i c i e ntt o r e nde ra c a s e m oota nd de pr i ve the f e de r a l c our t s of j ur i s di c t i on t o tr y the c a s e . “ I tha s l ong be e n the rul e tha t‘ vol unt a r y c e s s a t i on of a l l e ge dl y i l l e ga l c onduc tdoe s notde pr i ve the tr i buna l of pow e rt o he a ra nd det erm i ne the ca se , i . . e. , do es no tm ake the ca se m oo t . ’ ” Sec’ y of L ab or v. B urger Ki n gC o rp . , 955 F . 2d 681, 684 ( 11th C i r . 1992) ( quot i ng U n i t e d S ta t e s v . W

. T. G r ant C o. , 34 5 U . S . 62 9, 63 2, 73 S . C t89 4, 89 7, 97 L . E d. 13 03 (195 3)). F or a de f e nda nt ’ s vol unt a r y c e s s a t i on t o m oota ny l e ga l que s t i ons pr e s e nt e d a nd de pr i ve the c our tof

j ur i s di c t i on, i tm us tbe “ a bs ol ut e l y c l e a rtha tthe a l l e ge dl y w r ongf ul behavi or coul d n otre as on abl y be e xp ec t ed t o rec ur. ” I d. ( i nt e r na l quot a t i on m a r ks and ci t at i on s om i tt ed). In ot her w ords, vo l un t ary c es sa t i on of offe nsi ve cond uct w i l l o n l y m o o tl i t i g at i o n i f i ti s cl ear th atth e d efen d an th as n o tch an g ed co u rse s i m pl y t o de pr i ve the c our tof j ur i s di c t i on. 6 N a tio n a l is c o r r e c t in p o in tin g o u t th a t w h e n a d e f e n d a n t h a s v o lu n ta r ily c e a s e d its o f

f e n d in g c o n d u c t w e a r e r e lu c ta n t to d is m is s th e c a s e a s b e in g m o o t,11

p a r tic u la r ly if

th e r e is a f

f ir m a tiv e e v id e n c e th a t th e d e f e n d a n t is lik e ly to r e tu r n to i t s pri or w ay s f

ol l ow i ng ou r di sm i ss al of the l i t i gat i on . H ow ever , “ go vernm ent al e n titie s a n d o f

f ic ia ls h a v e b e e n g iv e n c o n s id e r a b ly m o r e le e w a y th a n p r iv a te part i es i n the pres um pt i on thatthey a re un l i kel y t o res um e i l l egal ac t i vi t i es . ” C or al Spr i ngs , 371 F . 3d a t1328- 29. I nde e d, a s w e not e d a bove , the c a s e s a r e l e gi on f r o m th is a n d o th e rc o u r ts w h e r e th e r e p e a l o f a n a lle g e d ly u n c o n s titu tio n a l s ta tu te w a s s u f f ic ie n t to m o o t litig a tio n c h a lle n g in g th e s ta tu te . See a l so 13 A W ri gh tet a l., Federa l

P ra ct i ce a n d

P ro cedu re § 3533. 7 ( 2d e d. 2004) ( “ C our t s a r e m or e apt t o trustpu bl i c off

i ci al s than p ri vat e def

endant s t o d es i stfr om future vi ol at i on s. ”) . I n s um , w he n a c our ti s pr e s e nt e d w i th e vi de nc e of a “ s ubs t a nt i a l l i ke l i hood” thatthe chal l enged st atut e w i l l be re enac t ed, the l i t i gat i on i s notm oo tand t he court s h o u ld r e ta in ju r is d ic tio n . C or al Spr i ngs , 371 F . 3d a t1329. H ow e ve r , i n the a bs e nc e of

e vi de nc e i ndi c a t i ng tha tthe gove r nm e nti nt e nds t o r e tur n t o i t s pr i or l egi sl at i ve sc hem e, re peal of an al l egedl y off ensi ve st atut e m oo t s l egal chal l enges t o the va l i di ty of

tha ts t a tut e . “ W he the rthe r e pe a l of a l a w w i l l l e a d t o a f

i ndi ng th atth e ch al l en g e t o th e l aw i s m o o td ep en d s m o s t s ig n ific a n tly on w he the rthe courti s s uffi ci ent l y c on vi nced thatthe re peal ed l aw w i l l no tbe brou gh tback. ” C or al Spr i ngs , 37 1 F . 3d at13 31 (e m ph as i s a dd ed). T here fore , N at i on al ’ s r el i ance on N a t’ l A dv e r . C o . v . C ity o f Fo r t L a u de r da le , 9 3 4 F .2 d 2 8 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 1 ) is m is p la c e d . I n th a t c a s e , th e C ity o f F o r t L au d e r d a le a m e n d e d its s ig n c o d e in12

re spon se t o a sui tchal l engi ng the const i tut i on al i ty of the st atut e. T he C i ty of F ort L auderdal e’ s c on du ct , i ncl ud i ng i t s m ot i on t o d i sm i ss for l ac k o f s ubj ec tm att er j ur i s di c t i on f

i l e d the da y a f

t e ri t s a m e ndm e ntt ook e f f e c t , “ s uf f i c i e nt l y c onvi nc e d” us tha ti f the s ui tw a s di s m i s s e d a s m oot , tha tthe C i ty w oul d s i m pl y r e - e na c tthe pr e vi ous ve r s i on of

i t s s i gn r e gul a t i ons . W e the r e f or e he l d tha tthe c a s e w a s not m oot , pr e c i s e l y be c a us e of the r i s k tha tthe C i ty m i ghtr e tur n t o the i rpr e vi ous c o u r s e o f c o n d u c t. Fo r t L a u de r da le , 93 4 F . 2d at28 6. W e a re conv i nced thatthere is n o s im ila rr is k in th is c a s e . T h e o n ly e v id e n c e th a t N a tio n a l h a s p r e s e n te d in th is c a s e to s u g g e s t th a t th e C ity m ig h t r e tu r n to its p r e v io u s v e r s io n o f th e o r d in a n c e is the fa ctthatthe C i ty has defe nd ed i t s ordi nance. H ow ever , on ce the re peal of an ordi nance has c ause d o ur j uri sdi ct i on t o b e quest i on ed, N at i on al bear s the bu rden of pres ent i ng af

fi rm at i ve evi dence thati t s c hal l enge i s no l on ger m oo t . M er e s pe c ul a t i on tha tthe C i ty m a y r e tur n t o i t s pr e vi ous w a y s i s no s ubs t i tut e f or co n cret e ev i d en ce o f secret i n t en t i o n s. N atio n al is also in co rr ec t i n su g g es ti n g th at w e s h o u ld fo cu s o n th e C ity’s m o tiv a tio n in a m e n d in g th e c o d e . T h e C ity ’s p u rp o s e in a m e n d in g th e s ta tu te is notthe c e ntr a l f

oc us of ouri nqui r y nori s i tdi s pos i t i ve of ourde c i s i on. R a the r , the m os ti m por t a nti nqui r y i s w he the rw e be l i e ve the C i ty w oul d r e - e na c tthe pr i or or di na nc e . A ga i n, the r e i s no e vi de nc e i n thi s c a s e s ugge s t i ng a ny r i s k tha tthe C ity o f M ia m i h a s a n y in te n tio n o f r e tu r n in g to its p r io rc o u r s e o f c o n d u c t.Natio nal sp e nd s a larg epo rtion

of its brie f a

rguingthat th eAp ri l 20 02 amendments 7 failed to cure theCity ’s zoning codeof constitutional infirmities in the per mitti ngproce ss. Those arguments aremisplaced in this appeal. We address National’s complaints reg ardingthe permitting process in this case ’s companion, Nation al II . A dditi on ally, b e c a us ethi s c a seis a fac ial challeng e to Miami’s zoning ordinanc e, weneed not address a ny issues relate d to whether National had acquire d any vested rights prior to the amendments which mooted this claim. Cf. Coral Spri ngs , 371 F.3d at 1333-1342. 13 G i ven t he l egal fr am ew ork for det erm i ni ng w hen sub se qu entevent s c an m oo ta l egal chal l enge, w e app l y tho se l egal pri nci pl es t o the fa ct s of thi s c as e. In A pr i l 2002, the C i ty of

M i a m i c om pl e t e l y r e vi s e d a nd a m e nde d i t s z oni ng ordi nances , changi ng ent i re l y the prov i si on s of thei r c od e thatw er e the gravam en o f th is su it . S p ec ifically, th e C ity’s r ev ised zo n in g o rd in an ce m o o ted N atio n al’s

7 c l a i m s tha tthe C i ty i m pe r m i s s i bl y f a vor e d c om m e r c i a l s pe e c h ove rnonco m m er cial sp ee ch . T h e n ew zo n in g o rd in an ce altere d co m p letely th e C ity’s r e gul a t i ons pe rt a i ni ng t o c om m e r c i a l a nd non- c om m e r c i a l s pe e c h. T he am endm ent s m ade c l ea r thatno n-com m er ci al m es sa ges w ou l d b e perm i tt ed a ny w he r e c om m e r c i a l m e s s a ge s w e r e a l l ow e d. A ddi t i ona l l y , the a m e ndm e nt cont ai ned a “ subst i tut i on cl ause ” thatst at ed that“ [a ] ny si gn al l ow ed herei n m ay cont ai n, i n l i eu of any other m es sa ge or copy, any l aw ful , no n-com m er ci al m es sa ge, so l on g as the si gn com pl i es w i th the si ze and h ei gh t , ar ea , and o ther r e q u ir e m e n ts .” F in a lly , O r d in a n c e 1 2 ,2 1 3 a m e n d e d th e C ity ’s d e f in itio n o f o n s ite s ig n s to m a k e it c le a rth a t a ll n o n - c o m m e r c ia l m e s s a g e s w e r e c o n s id e r e d o n s ite . T hese am endm ent s c hang ed the zoni ng code so thatthe al l egedl y uncon st i tut i on al14

p o rt i o n s o f th e C i ty’ s zo n i n g o rd i n an ce n o l o n g er ex i st . A s a resu l to f th ese c h a n g e s w e w o u ld b e in c ap a b le o f g r a n tin g N a tio n a l a n y o f th e r e lie f

r e q u e s te d in its o r ig in a l c o m p la in t a n d a n y d e c is io n w e w o u ld r e n d e rw o u ld c le a r ly c o n s titu te a n im p e r m is s ib le a d v is o r y o p in io n . T h e r e f o r e , N a tio n a l’s c la im s a r e m o o t. W h i l e w e refrain fro m d eci d i n g w h eth er th ese ch an g es w o u l d n u l l i fy any po t ent i al const i tut i on al i nfi rm i t i es i n the C i ty’ s z on i ng ordi nance, w e do h ol d that th e a m e n d m e n ts r e n d e r e d a ll th e c o m p la in ts r a is e d b y N a tio n a l in th is s u it m o o t. W hat everdefe ct s m ay re m ai n i n the C i ty of M i am i ’ s z on i ng ordi nance or other l a w s a r e notpr ope r l y be f or e us a nd w e do nota ddr e s s the m . A s w e ha ve he l d, “u n d e ro u rc o n s titu tio n a l s y s te m c o u r ts a r e n o t r o v in g c o m m is s io n s a s s ig n e d to pass j ud gm enton the val i di ty of the N at i on ' s l aw s. ” G e a n e a s v . W ille ts , 911 F . 2d 57 9, 58 4 (11 th C i r. 19 90 ). C ON C L US I ON F eder al court s a re court s of l i m i t ed j uri sdi ct i on . U nd erou r C on st i tut i on al s e pa r a t i on of

pow e r s f

r a m e w or k, i ti s e s s e nt i a l tha ta l l thr e e br a nc he s of gove r nm e nts tr i c t l y obs e r ve the l i m i t a t i ons on the i rpr ope rdom i ni on. T hus , outof r e s pe c tf orthe i rl i m i t e d r ol e w i thi n ourgove r nm e nt , f e de r a l c our t s ha ve l ong re fuse d t o i ss ue advi sory op i ni on s. A dd i t i on al l y, w e have re peat edl y hel d that m ootc a s e s f

a i l t o m e e tthe i m por t a ntr e qui r e m e nttha tc our t s onl y a ddr e s s a c t i ve c a s e s o rc o n tr o v e r s ie s . I n th is c a s e , th e C ity o f M ia m i’s a m e n d m e n ts to th e its15

z o n in g c o d e e f

f e c tiv e ly r e n d e r e d m o o t N a tio n a l’s c la im s a s to th e c o n s titu tio n a lity of the pri or vers i on of the code. F urtherm ore, w e a re confi dentthatthe C i ty does no tcont em pl at e r eturni ng t o i t s pri or zoni ng ordi nance, gi ven o ur stri ctdi sapp roval of thi s type of gov ernm ent al “ fl i p-fl op pi ng . ” Se e J e w s f orJ e s us v . Hi l l

s bor ough C ount y A v i at i on A uth. , 16 2 F . 3d 62 7, 63 0 (11 th C i r. 19 98 ). In such an i nst ance , th e c o u r th o u s e d o o rw o u ld r e m a in o p e n f o rr e in s ta te m e n t o f

s u c h a la w s u it. I

d . W e a r e c onvi nc e d tha ts i nc e the C i ty ha rbor s no i nt e nt i ons of r e tur ni ng t o the pr i or z oni ng or di na nc e thi s c a s e doe s notf a l l w i thi n a n e xc e pt i on tha tw oul d r e qui r e us to r e ta in ju r is d ic tio n . R E V E R S E D a nd R E M A N D E D , w i th i ns truc t i ons t o D I S M I S S f orl a c k of s ubj e c tm a tt e rj ur i s di c t i on.