East Meadow Community Concerts Ass’n v. Board of Educ., 18 N.Y.2d 129 (1966)

A court may address an otherwise moot case when the underlying controversy is likely to recur, especially when it involves significant constitutional questions regarding equal access to public facilities.

Summary

East Meadow Community Concerts Ass’n sued the Board of Education after the Board revoked permission for Pete Seeger to perform at a concert in a school auditorium due to his controversial views. The Appellate Division dismissed the appeal as moot after the concert date passed, even though it believed the revocation was an unconstitutional restriction of free speech. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the case was not moot because the issue of discriminatory access to public facilities was likely to recur. The court emphasized that when a case involves a recurring constitutional issue with public importance, it should be addressed despite technical mootness.

Facts

East Meadow Community Concerts Ass’n, a non-profit, had been presenting concerts in a high school auditorium with the Board’s permission for ten years.
In June 1965, the Board approved a series of concerts for 1965-1966, including one featuring Pete Seeger scheduled for March 12, 1966.
The concert was publicized, and tickets were sold.
In December 1965, the Board withdrew permission due to Seeger’s controversial views (giving a concert in Moscow and singing songs critical of American policy in Vietnam), fearing a disturbance.

Procedural History

The plaintiff sued, seeking a declaration that the Board’s action was unconstitutional and an injunction to prevent interference with the concert.
Special Term dismissed the complaint, finding no constitutional violation.
The Appellate Division heard the appeal after the concert date had passed and opined that the revocation was an unlawful restriction of free speech but dismissed the appeal as moot since the concert had already been missed and plaintiff sought no damages.
Plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeals on constitutional grounds.

Issue(s)

Whether the Appellate Division erred in dismissing the appeal as moot when the underlying issue involved a recurring constitutional question regarding discriminatory access to public facilities.

Holding

Yes, because the controversy was of a character likely to recur, involving significant constitutional issues regarding equal access to public facilities, making it an exception to the mootness doctrine.

Court’s Reasoning

The court reasoned that the State is not obligated to open school buildings for public gatherings, but if it does, it must do so “in a reasonable and nondiscriminatory manner, equally applicable to all and administered with equality to all.”
The Board had allowed numerous organizations to use the school auditorium for nonacademic purposes, creating an obligation not to discriminate unconstitutionally in deciding who can use it.
The justification for canceling the permit was Seeger’s unpopular views, not any unlawful purpose of the concert. The court noted, “The expression of controversial and unpopular views… is precisely what is protected by both the Federal and State Constitutions.”
Citing Matter of Rockwell v. Morris, the court reiterated that prior restraint of expression is only permissible when the expression will “immediately and irreparably create injury to the public weal.”
The court found the question of mootness itself presented a constitutional issue, giving the court jurisdiction to review the Appellate Division’s decision.
The court stated, “It is settled doctrine that an appeal will, nevertheless, be entertained where, as here, the controversy is of a character which is likely to recur not only with respect to the parties before the court but with respect to others as well.”
Even though the plaintiff sought injunctive relief primarily, it also sought a declaratory judgment that the Board’s action was unconstitutional. Since the plaintiff was likely to continue presenting concerts, the dispute gave rise to a “justiciable controversy” for which a declaratory judgment was appropriate.
The court reversed the Appellate Division’s order and remanded the case for further proceedings.