Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 362

529US1

Unit: $U42

[10-11-01 11:58:07] PAGES PGT: OPIN

Cite as: 529 U. S. 277 (2000)

287

Opinion of the Court

The city of Erie petitioned for a writ of certiorari, which
526 U. S. 1111 (1999). Shortly thereafter,
we granted.
Pap’s ﬁled a motion to dismiss the case as moot, noting that
Kandyland was no longer operating as a nude dancing club,
and Pap’s was not operating a nude dancing club at any other
location. Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss as Moot 1. We
denied the motion. 527 U. S. 1034 (1999).

II

As a preliminary matter, we must address the justiciabil-
ity question.
“ ‘[A] case is moot when the issues presented
are no longer “live” or the parties lack a legally cognizable
interest in the outcome.’ ” County of Los Angeles v. Davis,
440 U. S. 625, 631 (1979) (quoting Powell v. McCormack, 395
U. S. 486, 496 (1969)). The underlying concern is that, when
the challenged conduct ceases such that “ ‘there is no reason-
able expectation that the wrong will be repeated,’ ” United
States v. W. T. Grant Co., 345 U. S. 629, 633 (1953), then it
becomes impossible for the court to grant “ ‘any effectual re-
lief whatever’ to [the] prevailing party,” Church of Scien-
tology of Cal. v. United States, 506 U. S. 9, 12 (1992) (quoting
Mills v. Green, 159 U. S. 651, 653 (1895)).
In that case, any
opinion as to the legality of the challenged action would be
advisory.

Here, Pap’s submitted an afﬁdavit stating that it had
“ceased to operate a nude dancing establishment in Erie.”
Status Report Re Potential Issue of Mootness 1 (Sept. 8,
1999). Pap’s asserts that the case is therefore moot because
“[t]he outcome of this case will have no effect upon Respond-
ent.” Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss as Moot 1. Simply
closing Kandyland is not sufﬁcient to render this case moot,
however. Pap’s is still incorporated under Pennsylvania law,
and it could again decide to operate a nude dancing establish-
ment in Erie. See Petitioner’s Brief in Opposition to Motion
Justice Scalia differs with our assessment
to Dismiss 3.
as to the likelihood that Pap’s may resume its nude dancing