Appellee, who was not a student at Princeton University, was
arrested for criminal trespass while distributing political
materials on the University's campus without having first received
permission from University officials, as required by a University
regulation. Appellee was convicted in state court, but the New
Jersey Supreme Court reversed, holding that his rights of speech
and assembly under the State Constitution had been violated. The
University, which had intervened in the State Supreme Court
proceedings, filed a notice of appeal and a jurisdictional
statement (joined by the State) in this Court, claiming that the
judgment below deprived it of its rights under the First, Fifth,
and Fourteenth Amendments of the Federal Constitution.
Held: The appeal is dismissed for want of
jurisdiction.
(a) The State, in its brief, asked that the issues be decided,
but declined to take a position on the merits. Thus, if the State
were the sole appellant, the appeal would be dismissed for want of
a case or controversy. Accordingly, the State's presence in the
case does not provide a sound jurisdictional basis for undertaking
to decide the constitutional issues.
(b) Nor does this Court have jurisdiction with respect to the
University. While the case was pending on appeal, the University
substantially amended its pertinent regulations, and the New Jersey
Supreme Court did not pass on the validity of the revised
regulations. The issue of the old regulation's validity is thus
moot. Since the University is not prevented by the judgment below
from having the validity of its new regulation ruled upon in
another enforcement action, it is without standing to invoke this
Court's jurisdiction.
Appeal dismissed. Reported below: 84 N.J. 535, 23 A.2d 615.
Page 455 U. S. 101
PER CURIAM.
I
Appellee Schmid was arrested and charged with criminal trespass
while distributing political materials on the campus of Princeton
University. Schmid was not a student at Princeton University. Under
University regulations then in effect, members of the public who
wished to distribute materials on the campus were required to
receive permission from University officials. Appellee was tried in
Princeton Borough Municipal Court and on October 20, 1978, the
trial judge issued an opinion convicting appellee and fining him
$15 plus $10 costs. A
de novo trial in the New Jersey
Superior Court, Law Division, also resulted in conviction and the
same fine was imposed. While appeal was pending to the Superior
Court, Appellate Division, the case was certified for review by the
New Jersey Supreme Court. That court invited the University to
intervene and participate as a party, which it did.
The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed the judgment of
conviction, holding that appellee's rights of speech and assembly
under the New Jersey Constitution had been violated.
State v.
Schmid, 84 N.J. 535,
423 A.2d
615 (1980). The University filed a notice of appeal and
jurisdictional statement. Its claim is that the judgment below
deprives it
Page 455 U. S. 102
of its rights under the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments
of the United States Constitution. The State of New Jersey did not
file a separate jurisdictional statement, but joined in that of the
University. We postponed jurisdiction, 451 U.S. 982 (1981), and now
dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
II
The State of New Jersey has filed a brief in this Court asking
us to review and decide the issues presented, but stating that it
"deems it neither necessary nor appropriate to express an opinion
on the merits of the respective positions of the private parties to
this action." Brief for Appellant State of New Jersey 4. Had the
University not been a party to this case in the New Jersey Supreme
Court, and had the State filed a jurisdictional statement urging
reversal, the existence of a case or controversy -- and of
jurisdiction in this Court -- could not be doubted. However, if the
State were the sole appellant and its jurisdictional statement
simply asked for review and declined to take a position on the
merits, we would have dismissed the appeal for want of a case or
controversy. We do not sit to decide hypothetical issues or to give
advisory opinions about issues as to which there are not adverse
parties before us.
See, e.g., Sierra Club v. Morton,
405 U. S. 727,
405 U. S.
731-732 (1972);
Flast v. Cohen, 392 U. S.
83,
392 U. S.
99(1968). Thus the presence of the State of New Jersey
in this case does not provide a sound jurisdictional basis for
undertaking to decide difficult constitutional issues.
Princeton defends its own standing and our jurisdiction on the
grounds that it was a party to the case in the New Jersey Supreme
Court,
* that it is bound
by the judgment of that
Page 455 U. S. 103
court with respect to the validity of its regulations, and that
no other forum is available in which to challenge the judgment on
federal constitutional grounds. We have determined, however, that
we lack jurisdiction with respect to Princeton. The New Jersey
Supreme Court noted that, while the case was pending on appeal, the
University substantially amended its regulations governing
solicitation, distribution of literature, and similar activities on
University property by those not affiliated with the University. 84
N.J. at 539-541, n. 2, 568, 423 A.2d at 617-618, n. 2, 633. The
opinion below rested on the absence of a reasonable regulatory
scheme governing expressional activity on University property, but
the regulation at issue is no longer in force. Furthermore, the
lower court's opinion was careful not to pass on the validity of
the revised regulation under either the Federal or the State
Constitution. Thus, the issue of the validity of the old regulation
is moot, for this case has "lost its character as a present, live
controversy of the kind that must exist if we are to avoid advisory
opinions on abstract questions of law."
Hall v. Beals,
396 U. S. 45,
396 U. S. 48
(1969) (per curiam).
Princeton does not claim standing on the ground that a private
party may intervene and challenge the reversal of a criminal
conviction of another party.
See Linda R. S. v. Richard
D., 410 U. S. 614,
410 U. S. 619
(1973). Its alleged standing in this Court rests on its claim that
the judgment below would be
res judicata against it, and
that it has thus finally been deprived of the authority to enforce
the regulation as it stood prior to amendment. Since the judgment,
however, does not prevent it from having the validity of its new
regulation ruled upon in another enforcement action, the University
is without standing to invoke our jurisdiction. Accordingly, we
dismiss the appeal.
So ordered.
JUSTICE BRENNAN took no part in the consideration or decision of
this case.
* That Princeton had standing in state court does not determine
the power of this Court to consider the issue. Any determination of
who has standing to assert constitutional rights is a federal
question to be decided by the Court itself.
Cramp v. Board of
Public Instruction, 368 U. S. 278,
368 U. S. 282
(1961);
United States v. Raines, 362 U. S.
17,
362 U. S. 23, n.
3 (1960).