City News & Novelty, Inc. v. City of Waukesha

City News & Novelty v. Waukesha

Argued November 28, 2000
Decided January 17, 2001
Full case name City News & Novelty, Inc. v. City of Waukesha
Citations

531 U.S. 278 (more)

531 U.S. 278 (2001)
Prior history Denial affirmed, n°97-1502 (Wis. Ct. App. April 2, 1997); affirmed, 231 Wis.2d 93, 604 N.W.2d 870 (1999); certiorary granted, 530 U.S. 1242 (2000)
Holding
The writ of certiorari is dismissed as moot due to the store withdrawing its application.
Court membership
Chief Justice
William Rehnquist
Case opinions
Majority Ginsburg, joined by unanimous
Laws applied
First Amendment

City News & Novelty, Inc. v. Waukesha, 531 U.S. 278 (2001), was a United States Supreme Court case decided in 2001. The case concerned the denial of a business license for an adult store which sold sexually explicit materials. The Court eventually dismissed the case as the store had withdrawn their application to renew their license.

Background

In Freeman v. Maryland the United States Supreme Court announced procedural requirements necessary to guard against unconstitutional prior restraint.[1] Under this regime, the state of Wisconsin set up an administrative review process for reconsidering denials of licenses for adult stores. City News & Novelty, Inc., requested a renewal to operate their business in the city of Waukesha. Their application was denied.

Wisconsin state courts upheld the denial[2] and the store appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that they were not afforded proper judicial review of their matter before lower courts. The Supreme Court accepted the case to resolve a split amongst state and federal courts over how swift judicial review in these matters must be.[3]

Jeff Scott Olson, the attorney for the store, called the Supreme Court appeal important. According to Olson, "prompt judicial review" is important because municipal decisions on license matters can sometimes happen for a "distaste" of the particular business.[4]

Opinion of the Court

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote the decision for a unanimous court, dismissing the case. The basis for the dismissal was that City News had withdrawn its renewal application entirely.[3] This meant that there was no "cognizable interest in the outcome" of the case. While expressing a desire to resolve the important question in this case regarding judicial review of state censorship, there was no way for the matter to survive when there was no live controversy.[3][5]

See also

Notes

  1. ↑ 531 U.S. p. 282
  2. ↑ 531 U.S. pp. 283–84
  3. 1 2 3 531 U.S. p. 281
  4. ↑ Hudson 2000, p. 31
  5. ↑ Hudson 2000, p. 3031

References

External links

* Oral Argument audio at the OYEZ Project

This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the Tuesday, February 03, 2015. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.