Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-280_ba7d.pdf
Page Number: 6

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

3 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

missed.  If the Court did not do so, they intimated, the pub-
lic would realize that the Court is “motivated mainly by pol-
itics, rather than by adherence to the law,” and the Court 
would face the possibility of legislative reprisal.  Brief for 
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse et al. as Amici Curiae 2–3, 18 (in-
ternal quotation marks omitted).

Regrettably, the Court now dismisses the case as moot. 
If the Court were right on the law, I would of course approve 
that disposition.  Under the Constitution, our authority is
limited to deciding actual cases or controversies, and if this
were  no  longer  a  live  controversy—that  is,  if  it  were  now
moot—we would be compelled to dismiss.  But if a case is 
on our docket and we have jurisdiction, we have an obliga-
tion to decide it.  As Chief Justice Marshall wrote for the 
Court in Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264, 404 (1821), “[w]e
have  no  more  right  to  decline  the  exercise  of  jurisdiction
which is given, than to usurp that which is not given.” 

Thus,  in  this  case,  we  must  apply  the  well-established
standards for determining whether a case is moot, and un-
der those standards, we still have a live case before us.  It 
is certainly true that the new City ordinance and the new 
State  law  give  petitioners  most  of  what  they  sought,  but 
that is not the test for mootness.  Instead, “a case ‘becomes 
moot only when it is impossible for a court to grant any ef-
fectual relief whatever to the prevailing party.’ ”  Chafin v. 
Chafin, 568 U. S. 165, 172 (2013) (emphasis added).  “ ‘As 
long as the parties have a concrete interest, however small, 
in the outcome of the litigation, the case is not moot.’ ”  Ibid. 
(emphasis added).

Respondents  have  failed  to  meet  this  “heavy  burden.” 
Adarand  Constructors,  Inc.  v.  Slater,  528  U. S.  216,  222 
(2000)  (per curiam)  (internal  quotation  marks  omitted). 
This is so for two reasons.  First, the changes in City and 
State law do not provide petitioners with all the injunctive 
relief they sought.  Second, if we reversed on the merits, the 
District Court on remand could award damages to remedy