In the case of City of Mesquite v. Aladdin's Castle, Inc., 1981, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Aladdin's Castle, a company operating video game arcades. The city of Mesquite had passed an ordinance requiring parental consent for minors to play games at these arcades and later amended it to completely ban minors from entering without parents or guardians. After being challenged by Aladdin’s Castle on constitutional grounds, the city repealed this amendment while litigation was pending but maintained its right to reenact it if successful in court. The Supreme Court held that voluntary cessation does not necessarily deprive a federal court from its jurisdiction over cases and controversies if there is reasonable expectation that the same complaining party would be subjected to the same action again. Therefore, despite repealing their own law during proceedings, Mesquite could not avoid judicial review because they openly intended to reinstate it upon winning.

In the dissenting opinion for City of Mesquite v. Aladdin's Castle, Inc., Justice William Rehnquist disagreed with the majority view that a case is not moot if a defendant voluntarily ceases an allegedly illegal practice but is free to resume it at any time. He argued that there was no reasonable expectation or demonstrated probability that the same controversy would recur involving these parties since the city had amended its ordinance in response to court rulings and expressed no intention of reenacting the original version. Therefore, he believed this case should have been dismissed as moot because there was no longer a live dispute between parties over which relief could be granted by federal courts. This interpretation reflects his broader philosophy favoring judicial restraint and limiting federal court intervention in state matters unless absolutely necessary.