Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-280_ba7d.pdf
Page Number: 15

12 

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

and therefore I proceed on that assumption.)  And if that is 
the reason for what the Court has done, the Court is wrong.
This case is not moot. 

Article III, §2 of the Constitution limits the jurisdiction
of the federal courts to “Cases” and “Controversies,” and as 
a result, we may not “ ‘decide questions that cannot affect 
the rights of litigants in the case before [us].’ ”  Chafin, 568 
U. S., at 172.  Nor may we advise “ ‘what the law would be 
upon a hypothetical state of facts.’ ”  Ibid.  This means that 
the dispute between the parties in a case must remain alive
until its ultimate disposition.  If a live controversy ceases to 
exist—i.e., if a case becomes moot—then we have no juris-
diction to proceed.  But in order for this to happen, a case
must really be dead, and as noted, that occurs only “ ‘when 
it is impossible for a court to grant any effectual relief what-
ever to the prevailing party.’ ”  Ibid. (quoting Knox v. Service 
Employees,  567  U. S.  298,  307  (2012)).    “ ‘[A]s  long  as  the 
parties have a concrete interest, however small, in the out-
come of the litigation, the case is not moot.’ ”  Chafin, 568 
U. S., at 172 (quoting Knox, 567 U. S., at 307–308).  Thus, 
to  establish  mootness,  a  “demanding  standard”  must  be 
met.  Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC, 
587 U. S. ___, ___ (2019) (slip op., at 6). 

We have been particularly wary of attempts by parties to
manufacture mootness in order to evade review.  See Knox, 
567 U. S., at 307; accord, Northeastern Fla. Chapter, Asso-
ciated  Gen.  Contractors  of  America  v.  Jacksonville,  508 
U. S.  656,  661  (1993).    And  it  is  black-letter  law  that  we 
have a “virtually unflagging” obligation to exercise our ju-
risdiction.  Colorado  River  Water  Conservation  Dist.  v. 
United States, 424 U. S. 800, 817 (1976). 

In  this  case,  the  amended  City  ordinance  and  the  new
State law gave petitioners most of what they sought in their 
complaint, but the new laws did not give them complete re-
lief.  It is entirely possible for them to obtain more relief,