Whether vacatur is proper where the government's voluntary conduct causes the case to become moot in the context of the review of a successful facial constitutional challenge

Rescuin g the People from the riptide caused by unconstitutional firearm regulations, the Southern District delivered an analytically sound legal opinion declaring New York City’s moral character requirement for the possession of rifles and shotguns facially unconstitutional 1 and permanently enjoining its enforcement. While Respondents’ interlocutory appeal of the permanent injunction was being briefed, they voluntarily issued Petitioner a rifle/shotgun license, then sought dismissal of their interlocutory appeal as moot, and demanded vacatur of the district court order. Relying o n United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36 (1950), from which this Court departed long ago, the Second Circuit heedlessly vacated the unreviewed district court judgment in a manner starkly divergent from this Court’s jurisprudence under U.S. Bancorp Mortg. Co. v. Bonner Mall P’ship, 513 U.S. 18 (1994). Vacatur o f judgment under Munsingwear is strictly limited to events beyond the control of the non-prevailing party that cause the judgment being appealed to become unreviewable. Post -U.S. Bancorp the central factor to be considered is “whether the 1 New York City prohibits its residents from possessing rifles and shotguns without a license, which is subject to an openended, subjective assessment of the licensee’s “moral character.” See, § 10-303(a)(2) of the New York City Administrative Code (“NYAC”) . Pet.App.94a. Grounds to deny a license include non payment of child support, a negative driving history, and priorarrests that terminated in favor of the accused. Id party seeking relief from the judgment below caused the mootness by voluntary action.” U.S. Bancorp, at 24. The grant of vacatur requires (i) “extraordinary circumstances,” (ii) the court’s due consideration of the effects of vacatur on the public interest, and (iii)the appellant to demonstrate “equitable entitlement”to such extraordinary relief [ Id. at 2227], none of which were implemented by the Second Circuit. Evadi ng the basic, fundamental protections set in motion by this Court, the decision below represents a gross departure from U.S. Bancorp. The qu estion presented is: Whet her vacatur is proper where the government’s voluntary conduct causes the case to become moot in the context of the review of a successful facial constitutional challenge. ii