Facts
- Chris Schmid, not a Princeton student, distributed political materials on Princeton University’s campus without prior permission.
- Princeton maintained a regulation requiring members of the public to obtain university permission before distributing materials on campus.
- Schmid was arrested and convicted of criminal trespass in municipal court and, after a de novo proceeding, again convicted in New Jersey Superior Court, Law Division; he was fined $15 plus costs.
- The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed, holding Schmid’s speech and assembly rights under the New Jersey Constitution were violated.
- While review was sought in the U.S. Supreme Court, Princeton substantially amended the relevant campus-distribution regulations, and the New Jersey Supreme Court had not ruled on the amended rules.
- Princeton and New Jersey sought U.S. Supreme Court review; the State requested review but declined to take a position on the merits.
Issues
- Whether Article III permits review when the State requests review but declines to take a substantive position on the merits, leaving no genuine adversity.
- Whether Princeton’s substantial amendment of the challenged regulations mooted the dispute and deprived Princeton of standing to obtain review.
Decision
- The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
- As to New Jersey, the Court found no Article III case or controversy because the State did not present an adverse merits position.
- As to Princeton, the Court held the challenge to the prior regulation was moot due to the intervening regulatory changes.
- The Court declined to pass on the validity of the amended regulation because it had not been adjudicated below and could be litigated in a later enforcement action.
Legal Principles
- Federal courts may not issue advisory opinions; Article III requires adverse parties and a concrete dispute.
- A party’s refusal to take a substantive position on the merits can defeat the adversity needed for a justiciable case or controversy.
- Substantial changes to a challenged policy during appellate proceedings can moot claims directed at the superseded policy.
- The Court generally will not review the validity of a revised rule not passed on by the court below; lack of a live controversy and proper standing defeats jurisdiction.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court did not address the substantive free-speech questions and dismissed the appeal because the State’s posture failed to supply a justiciable controversy and Princeton’s policy revisions mooted the dispute over the prior regulation while leaving the amended regulation unreviewed.