The U.S. Supreme Court has dropped its consideration of a case that many people hoped would resolve conflicts over processing of adult business permit applications. The court dismissed a case from Wisconsin because the adult business had withdrawn its application, so "the case no longer qualifies for judicial review," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote for a unanimous court. The court had accepted the case because lower courts differ on the meaning of "prompt judicial review." The court in FW/PBS v. Dallas, 493 U.S. 215 (1990), ruled that unsuccessful applicants for adult business licenses must be accorded "an avenue for prompt judicial review." The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which includes California, has since ruled that unsuccessful applications must be assured of a prompt judicial determination on the merits. (Baby Tam & Co. v. Las Vegas, 154 F3d 1097 (CA9 1998; see CP&DR Legal Digest, March 2000, August 1999.) Other courts have given FW/PBS a less-strict reading. The Court of Appeals in Wisconsin, which handled the instant case, held that prompt access to judicial review is sufficient. In 1995, the City of Waukesha, Wisconsin, rejected the annual license renewal application of City News and Novelty, Inc. because, the city contended, the adult business had violated the city's ordinance by allowing minors onto the premises and allowing patrons to have sex in video viewing booths. The business lost legal challenges in Wisconsin state courts. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari and heard oral arguments. But not only did the actual controversy end when the business withdrew application, but the question the court hoped to reach was not reflected in the case. City News had been allowed to continue business during legal proceedings and was only acting to fend off a stop order. The lower court conflict has to do with license applicants whose expression cannot begin without government approval, Ginsburg wrote. "We venture no view on the merits of an argument urging preservation of speech (or expressive conduct) as the status quo pending administrative and judicial review," Ginsburg wrote. "It suffices to point out that the question is not the one on which the courts have divided." The case is City News and Novelty, Inc., v. City of Waukesha, No. 99-1680, 01 C.D.O.S. 465, 2001 Daily Journal D.A.R. 545.