Can the government render moot a fully briefed appeal challenging the denial of a license to carry a pistol by granting the license — though not confessing error — when the license must later be renewed under the same assertedly illegal standard?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED The District of Columbia revoked a license to carry a pistol that it had previously granted to petitioner Allen Whitaker on the grounds that he had allegedly exhibited “a propensity for violence or instability” based on a police encounter in which Mr. Whitaker did nothing wrong, was not arrested, and was never charged with any offense. When Mr. Whitaker appealed this administrative determination to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, the District twice attempted to get the matter remanded; then, to avoid a decision on Mr. Whitaker’s claims, it reinstated his license and successfully moved to dismiss the appeal as moot. The questions presented are: 1. Can the government render moot a fully briefed appeal challenging the denial of a license to carry a pistol by granting the license — though not confessing error — when the license must later be renewed under the same assertedly illegal standard? 2. Isa regulation that disqualifies applicants for gun licenses who have exhibited an undefined “propensity for violence or instability” unconstitutionally vague? li STATEMENT OF