Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
21. Should the court dismiss the owner's action?
The owner has sued the city in an appropriate federal court, seeking an injunction that would prohibit the city council from considering the organization's views, on the ground that if the organization is successful in its lobbying efforts, the owner's First and Fourteenth Amendment rights would be violated. The city has moved to dismiss the action.
A nightclub owner applied for a required zoning permit to open a nude-dancing nightclub in the theater district of a city. An organization of influential city residents began an intensive lobbying effort to persuade the city council to deny the owner a permit to operate any type of nude- dancing facility at any time or in any place in the city.
Comments (0)
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
Generally, an issue is not fit for judicial decision if it relies on uncertain or contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated. However, a court will hold that an issue is fit for judicial decision, even if it relies on uncertain or contingent future events, when the future events have an immediate impact.
C is correct. The court should grant the city's motion to dismiss the owner's action because the matter is not yet ripe. Federal courts require disputes to have matured sufficiently to warrant an actual decision, not merely an advisory opinion. This is true even if a federal court would have subject matter jurisdiction over the matter. Here, the owner wants an injunction to stop the city council from even considering the organization's views based on the possibility that if it does, the organization's lobbying efforts might succeed and in that event, the owner's constitutional rights would be violated. This is a situation that relies on an uncertain or contingent future event that may not even occur — the organization's success in its lobbying efforts. As such, the matter is not yet ripe and the court should dismiss the action.
A is incorrect. Although it is true that nude dancing does have First Amendment protections, this is not the issue presented here. The court need not reach the constitutional protections of nude dancing because the overall action is not yet ripe, and on that basis it should be dismissed.
B is incorrect. A determination of whether the organization is seeking a proper remedy is unnecessary. The fact that the case is not yet ripe ends the analysis.
D is incorrect. This answer reaches the correct answer with the wrong reasoning. Although the court should dismiss the owner's claim, it is not because nude dancing is obscene. In fact, the Supreme Court has held that nude dancing is protected by the First Amendment. The reason that the court should dismiss the action is that the action is not yet ripe, as explained above.