Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-280_ba7d.pdf
Page Number: 27

24 

NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSN., INC. v. 
CITY OF NEW YORK 
ALITO, J., dissenting 

State replaces its old law with a new one requiring certifi-
cation by three physicians.  Would the court be required to 
dismiss the woman’s suit?  Suppose the court, following the
precedent  set  by  today’s  decision,  holds  that  the  case  is 
moot,  and  suppose  that  the  woman  brings  a  second  case 
challenging the new law on the same ground.  If the State 
repeals that law and replaces it with one requiring certifi-
cation by two doctors, would the second suit be moot?  And 
what  if  the  State  responds  to  a  third  suit  by  enacting
replacement  legislation  demanding  certification  by  one 
doctor? 

Mootness doctrine does not require such results.  A chal-
lenge to an allegedly unconstitutional law does not become
moot with the enactment of new legislation that reduces but 
does not eliminate the injury originally alleged.  And that 
is the situation here. 

The Court cites one case in support of its holding, Lewis 
v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U. S. 472, 482–483 (1990), 
but  that  decision  is  wholly  inapposite.    The  situation  in 
Lewis  was  complicated,  but  the  critical  point  for  present
purposes is that, by the time the case reached this Court,
the enactment of new legislation meant that the plaintiff no
longer had Article III standing to assert its original claim. 
Id.,  at  478–479.  But  instead  of  simply  ordering  that  the
case be dismissed, the Court remanded to give the plaintiff 
the opportunity to assert a different claim and, if necessary,
to amend the complaint or “develop the record” to show it
had standing to pursue this new claim.  Id., at 482. 

The situation here is entirely different.  It is not disputed
that  petitioners  have  standing  to  contest  the  City’s  re-
strictions  on  trips  to  out-of-city  ranges  and  competitions, 
and as a result of those restrictions, petitioners have suf-
fered  and  will  continue  to  suffer  injury  that  is  concrete, 
traceable to actions taken by the City, and remediable by a 
court.  See  Spokeo,  Inc.  v.  Robins,  578  U. S.  ___  (2016).
They are not asserting a new claim.  Their original claim—