Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-280_ba7d.pdf
Page Number: 14.0

Cite as:  590 U. S. ____ (2020) 

11 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

least  in  part  by  our  grant  of  review.  See  Motion  to  Hold 
Briefing Schedule in Abeyance in No. 18–280, p. 3.  Under 
this amendment, holders of premises licenses would be al-
lowed to take their guns to ranges, competitions, and sec-
ond homes outside the City provided that the licensees trav-
eled “directly” between their residences and the permitted
destinations.  After a period of notice and comment, the pro-
posed amendment was adopted on June 21 and took effect 
on July 21.  Suggestion of Mootness 5–6. 

Our grant of certiorari also prompted action by New York
State.  With the support of the City, Tr. of Oral Arg. 46, the
Legislature  enacted  a  new  law  abrogating  any  local  law,
rule, or regulation that prevented the holder of a premises 
license from transporting a licensed handgun “directly to or 
from”  an  authorized  range,  competition,  or  second  home. 
N. Y. Penal Law Ann. §400.00(6) (as in effect July 16, 2019). 
Shortly after the new State law took effect, the City filed 
a Suggestion of Mootness, asking us to vacate the decision 
below and to remand with instructions to dismiss.  The City
urged  us  to  rule  on  this  matter  expeditiously  so  that  it
would not be required to file a brief defending its prior law. 
Suggestion  of  Mootness  1.    When  we  refused  to  vacate  at 
that stage, the City protested that briefing the merits “re-
quire[d] the City to do what Article III’s case-or-controversy 
requirement  is  designed  to  avoid:  engage  in  litigation  re-
garding the constitutionality of a law that no longer exists” 
and that the City would not reenact.  Brief for Respondents
1.    When  the  case  was  argued,  counsel  for  the  City  was 
asked whether the repeal of the travel restriction had made
the City any less safe, and his unequivocal answer was no. 
Tr. of Oral Arg. 52. 

II 

The Court vacates the judgment of the Court of Appeals, 
apparently on the ground that this case is now moot.  (Other
than mootness, no other basis for vacating comes to mind,