American Defense Initiative v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority
815 F.3d 105
| 2d Cir. | 2016Background
- AFDI sued the MTA claiming the incitement prohibition on an advertisement violated the First Amendment.
- The MTA previously allowed most ads but refused the AFDI Ad under its incitement ban.
- AFDI obtained a preliminary injunction restricting enforcement of the incitement prohibition as applied to the Ad.
- While the injunction was in place, the MTA amended advertising standards to convert to a limited public forum and ban political ads.
- The MTA moved to dissolve the injunction as moot; the district court granted the motion.
- AFDI appealed, arguing volatility of mootness and potential vested rights under state law; the district court’s partial judgment on damages remained unresolved.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether voluntary cessation moots the suit | AFDI argues cessation is not enough; the claim remains live. | MTA contends cessation and new policy render the claim moot. | Mootness found; voluntary cessation rendered claim moot. |
| Whether the MTA's new policy suffices to create a substantially different controversy | AFDI contends policy is unchanged in spirit, so controversy persists. | MTA argues policy change creates a fundamentally different controversy. | Yes; new policy creates a substantially different controversy. |
| Whether the special facts exception bars mootness due to vesting rights under New York law | AFDI relies on special facts exception to preserve rights accrued before amendment. | MTA contends no vesting right was established and exceptions do not apply. | Special facts exception does not apply; no vesting right established. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lamar Advertising of Penn, LLC v. Town of Orchard Park, New York, 356 F.3d 365 (2d Cir.2004) (causation of mootness based on a changed forum and new controversies)
- Knox v. Serv. Emps. Int’l Union, Local 1000, 132 S. Ct. 2277 (U.S. 2012) (mootness when no reasonable expectation of recurrence)
- United States v. Concentrated Phosphate Exp. Ass’n, 393 U.S. 199 (U.S. 1968) (heavy burden of persuasion for cessation mootness)
- Cty. of Los Angeles v. Davis, 440 U.S. 625 (U.S. 1979) (two-part test for mootness after voluntary cessation)
- Norman-Bloodsaw v. Lawrence Berkeley Lab., 135 F.3d 1260 (9th Cir.1998) (ongoing effects must be shown to avoid mootness)
- Rocky Point Drive-In, L.P. v. Town of Brookhaven, 21 N.Y.3d 729 (N.Y. 2013) (special facts exception framework for permit-related mootness)