What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to identify the federal agency involved in the administrative action that occurred prior to the onset of litigation. If the administrative action occurred in a state agency, respond "State Agency". Do not code the name of the state. The administrative activity may involve an administrative official as well as that of an agency. If two federal agencies are mentioned, consider the one whose action more directly bears on the dispute;otherwise the agency that acted more recently. If a state and federal agency are mentioned, consider the federal agency. Pay particular attention to the material which appears in the summary of the case preceding the Court's opinion and, if necessary, those portions of the prevailing opinion headed by a I or II. Action by an agency official is considered to be administrative action except when such an official acts to enforce criminal law. If an agency or agency official "denies" a "request" that action be taken, such denials are considered agency action. Exclude: a "challenge" to an unapplied agency rule, regulation, etc.; a request for an injunction or a declaratory judgment against agency action which, though anticipated, has not yet occurred; a mere request for an agency to take action when there is no evidence that the agency did so; agency or official action to enforce criminal law; the hiring and firing of political appointees or the procedures whereby public officials are appointed to office; attorney general preclearance actions pertaining to voting; filing fees or nominating petitions required for access to the ballot; actions of courts martial; land condemnation suits and quiet title actions instituted in a court; and federally funded private nonprofit organizations.

Opinion:
CITY NEWS & NOVELTY, INC. v. CITY OF WAUKESHA
No. 99-1680.
Argued November 28, 2000
Decided January 17, 2001
Ginsbubg, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
Jeff Scott Olson argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Richard L. Wilson, John H. Weston, G. Randall Garrou, and Cathy E. Crosson.
Curt R. Meitz argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Vincent D. Moschella and Thomas C. Goldstein.
James A. Feldman argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging affirmance. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Waxman, Assistant Attorney General Ogden, Deputy Solicitor General Kneedler, Lisa Schiavo Blatt, Michael Jay Singer, and Howard S. Scher
Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression et al. by Michael A. Bam-berger; for the American Charities for Reasonable Fund Raising Regulation, Inc., by Edward N. Mazlisk; and for the Liberty Project by Jodie L. Kelley.
Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for the State of Alabama et al. by James E. Doyle, Attorney General of Wisconsin, Thomas J. Balistreri, Assistant Attorney General, Bill Pryor, Attorney General of Alabama, Ken Salazar, Attorney General of Colorado, and Don Stenberg, Attorney General of Nebraska; for the Community Defense Counsel by Len L. Munsil and Scott D. Bergthold; for Morality in Media, Inc., et al. by Robin S. Whitehead and Bruce A. Taylor; and for the National League of Cities et al. by Richard Ruda and Charles A. Rothfeld.
Gary S. Edinger filed a brief for the Florida Cannabis Action Network, Inc;, as amicus curiae.
Justice Ginsburg
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U. S. 51 (1965), a case involving a state motion-picture censorship scheme, the Court announced procedural requirements necessary to guard against unconstitutional prior restraint of expression. Those requirements included assurance of “a prompt final judicial decision, to minimize the deterrent effect of an interim and possibly erroneous denial of a license.” Id., at 59. Twenty-five years later, in FW/PBS, Inc. v. Dallas, 493 U. S. 215 (1990), the Court applied some of the Freedman standards to a municipal ordinance conditioning the operation of sexually oriented businesses on receipt of a license. Unsuccessful applicants for an adult business license, the opinion announcing the judgment stated, must be accorded “an avenue for prompt judicial review.” 493 U. S., at 229.
Courts have divided over the meaning of FW/PBS’s “prompt judicial review” requirement. Some have held that the unsuccessful applicant for an adult business license must be assured a prompt judicial determination on the merits of the permit denial. See, e. g., Baby Tam & Co. v. Las Vegas, 154 F. 3d 1097, 1101-1102 (CA9 1998); 11126 Baltimore Blvd., Inc. v. Prince George’s County, 58 F. 3d 988, 999-1000 (CA4 1995) (en banc). Others, like the Court of Appeals of Wisconsin whose judgment is before us, 231 Wis. 2d 93, 115-116, 604 N. W. 2d 870, 882 (1999), have held that prompt access to court review suffices. See, e. g., Boss Capital, Inc. v. Casselberry, 187 F. 3d 1251, 1256-1257 (CA11 1999); TK’s Video, Inc. v. Denton County, 24 F. 3d 705, 709 (CA5 1994). We granted certiorari to resolve the conflict. 530 U. S. 1242 (2000). We now find, however, that the issue stemming from Freedman is not genuinely presented to us in this case. We therefore dismiss the petition and leave the judgment of the Wisconsin court undisturbed.
H — 1
The City of Waukesha, Wisconsin (City), requires sellers of sexually explicit materials to obtain and annually renew adult business licenses. See Waukesha Municipal Code §§8.195(2), (7) (1995), reprinted in App. to Pet. for Cert. 101, 104. Petitioner City News and Novelty, Inc. (City News), pursuant to a City license first obtained in 1989, owned and operated an adult-oriented shop in downtown Waukesha. In November 1995, City News applied for a renewal of its license, then due to expire in two months. In December 1995, Waukesha’s Common Council denied the application, finding that City News had violated the City’s ordinance by permitting minors to loiter on the premises, failing to maintain an unobstructed view of booths in the store, and allowing patrons to engage in sexual activity inside the booths. Wauke-sha’s refusal to renew City News’s license was upheld in administrative proceedings and on judicial review in the state courts.
Petitioning for certiorari, City News raised three questions. First, City News asserted that the persuasion burden had been improperly assigned to it. Second, City News urged that Waukesha’s ordinance unconstitutionally accorded City officials unbridled discretion to vary punishments for ordinance violations. Third, City News asked us to “resolve the conflict among the circuits concerning whether the guarantee of prompt judicial review that must accompany [an. adult business] licensing scheme means a prompt judicial determination or simply the right to promptly file for judicial review.” Pet. for Cert. 13. We granted the petition only on the third question.. Accordingly, City News cannot now contend that any of the substantive requirements governing adult business licenses in Waukesha conflict with the First Amendment. Nor does City News contend that the evidence failed to substantiate the charged violations. We now explain why City News is not properly situated to raise the question on which we granted review.
> — I
In letters sent to Waukesha two months after petitioning for review in this Court, City News gave notice that it would withdraw its renewal application and close its business upon the City’s grant of a license to another corporation, B. J. B., Inc., “a larger and more modern business” with which City News felt “it [could not] effectively compete.” Letters from Jeff Scott Olson to Vince Mosehella (June 12 and 19, 2000), Respondent’s Lodging, Vol. 1, Tab No. 14. Wau-kesha granted B. J. B.’s license application on June 20. It is undisputed that City News has ceased to operate as an adult business and no longer seeks to renew its license. Tr. of Oral Arg. 14-15.
Observing that City News neither now pursues nor currently expresses an intent to pursue a license under Wauke-sha law, Waukesha asserts that the case has become moot, for City News no longer has “a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.” County of Los Angeles v. Davis, 440 U. S. 625, 631 (1979) (citing Powell v. McCormack, 395 U. S. 486, 496 (1969)). We agree that the case no longer qualifies for judicial review. Urging that the case remains fit for adjudication, City News tenders two points. We find' neither persuasive.
Noting that it “has never promised not to apply for a license” in the future, Reply Brief 1, City News first contends that, notwithstanding the voluntary termination of its license renewal effort, a live controversy remains under the Court’s reasoning in Erie v. Pap’s A. M., 529 U. S. 277 (2000). In our view, Erie differs critically from this case. In Erie, we similarly granted a petition to review a state-court judgment addressing an adult business’ First Amendment challenge to a city ordinance. We concluded that the controversy persisted, even though the adult business had shut down. We reached that conclusion, it is true, in part because the business “could again decide to operate.” Id., at 287. That speculation standing alone, however, did not shield the case from a mootness determination. Another factor figured prominently. The nude dancing entrepreneur in Erie sought “to have the case declared moot” after the business had “prevailed below,” obtaining a judgment that invalidated Erie’s ordinance. Id., at 288. Had we accepted the entrepreneur’s plea, then consistent with our practice when a case becomes moot on review from a state court, we would have dismissed the petition, leaving intact the judgment below. See ASARCO Inc. v. Radish, 490 U. S. 605, 621, n. 1 (1989); Erie, 529 U. S., at 305 (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment). Thus, had we declared Erie moot, the defendant municipality would have been saddled with an “ongoing injury,” i. e., the judgment striking its law. Id., at 288. And the plaintiff arguably would have prevailed in an “attemp[t] to manipulate the Court’s jurisdiction to insulate a favorable decision from review.” Ibid.
In this case, we confront no parallel circumstance. The adult enterprise before us left the fray as a loser, not a winner. Our dismissal here does not keep Waukesha under the weight of an adverse judgment, or deprive Waukesha of its victory in state court.. Nor does a mootness dismissal reward an arguable manipulation of our jurisdiction, for plaintiff City News, unlike the nude dancing entrepreneur in Erie, opposes a declaration of mootness.
City News also urges that it experiences ongoing injury because it is conclusively barred by Waukesha’s ordinance from reopening as an adult business until 2005. It is far from clear, however, whether City News actually suffers that disability. And as our prior discussion suggests, supra, at 283, a live controversy is not maintained by speculation that City News might be temporarily disabled from reentering a business that City News has left and currently asserts no plan to reenter. See Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U. S. 1, 15-16 (1998).
City News’s contention that it remains a qualified complainant also fails for a separate reason. Full briefing and argument have revealed that the question City News tendered, and which we took up for review, is not now and never was accurately reflective of City News’s grievance. Unlike the initial license applicant whose expression cannot begin prepermission (the situation of the complainant in Freedman), City News was already licensed to conduct an adult business and sought to fend off a stop order. Swift judicial review is the remedy needed by those held back from speaking. We do not doubt that an ongoing adult enterprise facing loss of its license to do business may allege First Amendment injuries. Such an establishment’s typical concern, however, is not the speed of court proceedings, but the availability of a stay of adverse action during the pendency of judicial review, however long that review takes.
Unlike the petitioner in Freedman, who sought, through swift court review, an end to the status quo of silence, City News sought to maintain, pendente lite, the status quo of speech (or expressive conduct). Brief for Petitioner 43-44. We venture no view on the merits of an argument urging preservation of speech (or expressive conduct) as the status quo pending administrative and judicial review proceedings. It suffices to point out that the question is not the one on which the courts have divided or on which we granted certiorari.
For the reasons stated, the writ of certiorari is
Dismissed.
City News appears to rely on the general rule that voluntary cessation of a challenged practice rarely moots a federal case. See, e. g., Friends of Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc., 528 U. S. 167, 189 (2000). But that rule traces to the principle that a party should not be able to evade judicial review, or to defeat a judgment, by temporarily altering questionable behavior. See Gwaltney of Smithfield, Ltd. v. Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Inc., 484 U. S. 49, 66-67 (1987) (“Mootness doctrine ... protects plaintiffs from defendants who seek to evade sanction by predictable ‘protestations of repentance and reform.’ ”) (quoting United States v. Oregon State Medical Soc., 343 U. S. 326, 333 (1952)); see also Friends of Earth, 528 U. S., at 189 (Courts are not “compelled to leave ‘[t]he defendant . . . free to return to his old ways.’”) (quoting City of Mesquite v. Aladdin’s Castle, Inc., 455 U. S. 283, 289, n. 10 (1982), in turn quoting United States v. W.T. Grant Co., 345 U. S. 629, 632 (1953)). That principle does not aid City News. For it is City News, not its adversary, whose conduct saps the controversy of vitality, and City News can gain nothing from our dismissal.
City News points to Waukesha’s rule that to receive an adult entertainment license, an applicant “shall not have been found to have previously violated [the adult business ordinance] within 5 years immediately preceding the date of the application.” Waukesha Municipal Code § 8.195(4)(a)(2) (1995), reprinted in App. to Pet. for Cert. 103. It was in 1995, however, that Waukesha last found City News to have violated the City ordinance. As City News recognizes, the disabilities from these violations expired in 2000. Reply Brief 2. City News asserts that it remains vulnerable to the bar because, in violation of the ordinance, it operated without a license into the year 2000. But this argument runs up against the facts that, since 1995, City News has not “been found” by Waukesha’s Common Council to have violated the ordinance, and that the council expressly permitted City News to continue in business during the pendency of state-court proceedings. See Petitioner’s Lodging, Tab No. 3. If City News seeks a license in the future, and if Waukesha attempts to invoke its five-year bar, nothing in the prior proceedings or in our disposition today will disable City News from contesting the bar’s application.

Question: What is the agency involved in the administrative action?

Choices:
Army and Air Force Exchange Service
Atomic Energy Commission
Secretary or administrative unit or personnel of the U.S. Air Force
Department or Secretary of Agriculture
Alien Property Custodian
Secretary or administrative unit or personnel of the U.S. Army
Board of Immigration Appeals
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Bureau of Prisons
Bonneville Power Administration
Benefits Review Board
Civil Aeronautics Board
Bureau of the Census
Central Intelligence Agency
Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Department or Secretary of Commerce
Comptroller of Currency
Consumer Product Safety Commission
Civil Rights Commission
Civil Service Commission, U.S.
Customs Service or Commissioner or Collector of Customs
Defense Base Closure and REalignment Commission
Drug Enforcement Agency
Department or Secretary of Defense (and Department or Secretary of War)
Department or Secretary of Energy
Department or Secretary of the Interior
Department of Justice or Attorney General
Department or Secretary of State
Department or Secretary of Transportation
Department or Secretary of Education
U.S. Employees' Compensation Commission, or Commissioner
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Environmental Protection Agency or Administrator
Federal Aviation Agency or Administration
Federal Bureau of Investigation or Director
Federal Bureau of Prisons
Farm Credit Administration
Federal Communications Commission (including a predecessor, Federal Radio Commission)
Federal Credit Union Administration
Food and Drug Administration
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
Federal Energy Administration
Federal Election Commission
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Federal Housing Administration
Federal Home Loan Bank Board
Federal Labor Relations Authority
Federal Maritime Board
Federal Maritime Commission
Farmers Home Administration
Federal Parole Board
Federal Power Commission
Federal Railroad Administration
Federal Reserve Board of Governors
Federal Reserve System
Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation
Federal Trade Commission
Federal Works Administration, or Administrator
General Accounting Office
Comptroller General
General Services Administration
Department or Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare
Department or Secretary of Health and Human Services
Department or Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
Administrative agency established under an interstate compact (except for the MTC)
Interstate Commerce Commission
Indian Claims Commission
Immigration and Naturalization Service, or Director of, or District Director of, or Immigration and Naturalization Enforcement
Internal Revenue Service, Collector, Commissioner, or District Director of
Information Security Oversight Office
Department or Secretary of Labor
Loyalty Review Board
Legal Services Corporation
Merit Systems Protection Board
Multistate Tax Commission
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Secretary or administrative unit or personnel of the U.S. Navy
National Credit Union Administration
National Endowment for the Arts
National Enforcement Commission
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
National Labor Relations Board, or regional office or officer
National Mediation Board
National Railroad Adjustment Board
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
National Security Agency
Office of Economic Opportunity
Office of Management and Budget
Office of Price Administration, or Price Administrator
Office of Personnel Management
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission
Office of Workers' Compensation Programs
Patent Office, or Commissioner of, or Board of Appeals of
Pay Board (established under the Economic Stabilization Act of 1970)
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation
U.S. Public Health Service
Postal Rate Commission
Provider Reimbursement Review Board
Renegotiation Board
Railroad Adjustment Board
Railroad Retirement Board
Subversive Activities Control Board
Small Business Administration
Securities and Exchange Commission
Social Security Administration or Commissioner
Selective Service System
Department or Secretary of the Treasury
Tennessee Valley Authority
United States Forest Service
United States Parole Commission
Postal Service and Post Office, or Postmaster General, or Postmaster
United States Sentencing Commission
Veterans' Administration or Board of Veterans' Appeals
War Production Board
Wage Stabilization Board
State Agency
Unidentifiable
Office of Thrift Supervision
Department of Homeland Security
Board of General Appraisers
Board of Tax Appeals
General Land Office or Commissioners
NO Admin Action
Processing Tax Board of Review

Answer: 116