Document: 531 U.S. 278121 S.Ct. 743148 L.Ed.2d 757 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of United States Reports. Readers are requested notify Reporter Decisions, Supreme Court States, Washington, D. C. 20543, any typographical or other errors, order that corrections may be made goes press.CITY NEWS AND NOVELTY, INC., PETITIONERv.CITY OF WAUKESHA No. 99-1680. SUPREME COURT THE UNITED STATES Argued November 28, 2000 Decided January 17, 2001 Syllabus The City Waukesha, Wisconsin (City), requires sellers sexually explicit materials obtain and annually renew adult business licenses. When petitioner News Novelty, Inc. (City News), applied for a renewal its license, then due expire two months, Waukesha's Common Council denied application, finding had violated City's ordinance various ways. denial was upheld administrative proceedings on judicial review state courts. Petitioning certiorari, raised three questions, including whether guarantee prompt must accompany an licensing scheme, see Freedman v. Maryland, 380 51, 59; FW/PBS, Dallas, 493 215, 229, means determination merits permit denial, as some Federal Circuits have held, simply access review, Appeals, below, courts ruled. Because this granted petition only question, cannot now contend substantive requirements governing licenses Waukesha conflict with First Amendment. Nor does evidence failed substantiate charged violations. Held: not properly situated raise question which dismissed judgment court left undisturbed. Pp. 3_7. (a) case has become moot. After petitioning withdrew application ceased operate business. no longer seeks license currently expresses intent pursue license. Accordingly, legally cognizable interest outcome. E.g., County Los Angeles Davis, 440 625, 631. Neither News's arguments remains fit adjudication persuasive. rejects contention that, because it never promised reapply live controversy under Erie Pap's A. M., 529 277. differs critically from case. In Erie, instant case, confronted business' challenge city ordinance. There, held persisted, even after shut down, part could again decide operate. Id., at 287. That speculation standing alone, however, did shield mootness determination. Another factor figured prominently. nude dancing entrepreneur sought declared moot prevailed obtaining state-court invalidated Erie's 288. Acceptance plea would resulted dismissal petition, leaving intact below. See ASARCO Kadish, 490 605, 621, n. 1. As result, been saddled ongoing injury, i.e., striking law, arguably attempt manipulate Court's jurisdiction insulate favorable decision U.S., Here, contrast, fray loser, winner. Dismissal will keep weight adverse judgment, deprive victory, reward arguable manipulation jurisdiction. also experiences injury conclusively barred by reopening until 2005. It far clear actually suffers disability. And maintained might temporarily disabled reentering asserts plan reenter. Spencer Kemna, 523 1, 15_16. 3_6. (b) qualified complainant fails another ground. Full briefing argument revealed tendered, took up accurately reflective grievance. Unlike initial applicant whose expression begin prepermission, already licensed conduct fend off stop order. Swift remedy needed those back speaking. doubt enterprise facing loss do allege Amendment injuries. Such establishment's typical concern, speed proceedings, but availability stay action during pendency however long takes. petitioner, who sought, through swift end status quo silence, maintain, pendente lite, speech (or expressive conduct). ventures view urging preservation conduct) pending proceedings. one divided certiorari here. 6_7. Certiorari dismissed. Reported below: 231 Wis. 2d 93, 604 N. W. 870. ON WRIT CERTIORARI TO APPEALS WISCONSIN, DISTRICT II Ginsburg, J., delivered unanimous Court. Opinion Justice Ginsburg 1 51 (1965), involving motion-picture censorship announced procedural necessary guard against unconstitutional prior restraint expression. Those included assurance "a final decision, minimize deterrent effect interim possibly erroneous license." 59. Twenty-five years later, 215 (1990), standards municipal conditioning operation oriented businesses receipt Unsuccessful applicants adult-business announcing stated, accorded "an avenue review." 229. 2 Courts over meaning FW/PBS's "prompt review" requirement. Some unsuccessful assured denial. See, e.g., Baby Tam & Co. Las Vegas, 154 F.3d 1097, 1101_1102 (CA9 1998); 11126 Baltimore Blvd., Prince George's County, 58 988, 999_1000 (CA4 1995) (en banc). Others, like Appeals us, 115_116, 870, 882 (1999), suffices. Boss Capital, Casselberry, 187 1251, 1256_1257 (CA11 1999); TK's Video, Denton 24 705, 709 (CA5 1994). We resolve conflict. 530 1249 (2000). find, issue stemming genuinely presented us therefore dismiss leave 3 * Municipal Code §§8.195(2), (7) (1995), reprinted App. Pet. Cert. 101, 104. Petitioner pursuant first obtained 1989, owned operated adult-oriented shop downtown Waukesha. 1995, months. December (Council) permitting minors loiter premises, failing maintain unobstructed booths store, allowing patrons engage sexual activity inside booths. refusal 4 questions. First, asserted persuasion burden improperly assigned it. Second, urged unconstitutionally officials unbridled discretion vary punishments Third, asked "resolve among circuits concerning [an business] scheme right promptly file 13. third question. explain why we review. 5 letters sent months Court, gave notice withdraw close upon grant corporation, B. J. B., Inc., larger more modern business" felt "it effectively compete." Letters Jeff Scott Olson Vince Moschella (June 12 19, 2000), Respondent's Lodging, Vol. Tab 14. B.'s June 20. undisputed Tr. Oral Arg. 14_15. 6 Observing neither pursues nor moot, outcome." 631 (1979) (citing Powell McCormack, 395 486, 496 (1969)). agree qualifies Urging adjudication, tenders points. find 7 Noting "has apply license" future, Reply Brief contends notwithstanding voluntary termination effort, reasoning 277 our view, similarly addressing concluded though down. reached conclusion, true, "could operate." "to moot" "prevailed below," Had accepted entrepreneur's plea, consistent practice when becomes court, (1989); 305 (Scalia, concurring judgment). Thus, defendant municipality "ongoing injury," law. plaintiff "attemp[t] Ibid. 8 confront parallel circumstance. Our here victory court. jurisdiction, News, unlike opposes declaration mootness.1 9 urges clear, disability.2 discussion suggests, supra, 4, 15_16 (1998). 10 separate reason. prepermission (the situation Freedman), 11 Freedman, 43_44. venture suffices point out certiorari. For reasons writ 13 Dismissed. NOTES: appears rely general rule cessation challenged rarely moots federal Friends Earth, Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), 528 167, 189 But traces principle party should able evade defeat altering questionable behavior. Gwaltney Smithfield, Ltd. Chesapeake Bay Foundation, 484 49, 66_67 (1987) ("Mootness doctrine _ protects plaintiffs defendants seek sanction predictable `protestations repentance reform.' ") (quoting Oregon State Medical Society, 343 326, 333 (1952)); (Courts "compelled `[t]he free return his old ways.' Mesquite Aladdin's Castle, 455 283, 289, (1982)) (in turn quoting T. Grant Co., 345 629, 632 (1953)). aid News. adversary, saps vitality, can gain nothing dismissal. points receive entertainment "shall found previously [the ordinance] within immediately preceding date application." §8.195(4)(a)(2) 103. last recognizes, disabilities these violations expired 2000. 2. vulnerable bar because, violation ordinance, without into year runs facts since "been found" expressly permitted continue Petitioner's 3. If if attempts invoke five-year bar, disposition today disable contesting bar's application.

Category: 8