Opinion ID: 613273
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The 2008 Ordinance Fundamentally Changed the 2004 Ordinance

Text: Covenant also argues that its claims for injunctive relief are not moot because the 2008 Ordinance did not remove all unlawful defects in the 2004 Ordinance. We have recognized that [w]here a superseding statute leaves objectionable features of the prior law substantially undisturbed, the case is not moot. Naturist Soc., Inc. v. Fillyaw, 958 F.2d 1515, 1520 (11th Cir.1992). Accordingly, a superseding statute or regulation moots a case only to the extent that it removes challenged features of the prior law. To the extent that those features remain in place, and changes in the law have not so fundamentally altered the statutory framework as to render the original controversy a mere abstraction, the case is not moot. Id. We conclude that the 2008 Ordinance has fundamentally changed the City's zoning regulations and mooted Covenant's claims for injunctive relief. The 2008 Ordinance makes places of assembly (including religious institutions), private parks, playgrounds, and neighborhood recreation centers special uses permitted upon approval by the City Council. Under the 2004 Ordinance, churches were completely prohibited in residential zones while all of these other uses were permitted. One of the central allegations of Covenant's First Amended Complaint is that the 2004 Ordinance treats religious institutions differently from other similar uses. Under the 2008 Ordinance, religious institutions in R-2 residential zoning classifications are no longer treated differently than the uses that Covenant identifies as similar in the First Amended Complaint. Therefore, we agree with the district court that the 2008 Ordinance fundamentally altered the statutory framework, id., and thus the claims for injunctive relief concerning the 2004 Ordinance are now moot.