1. Whether under the voluntary cessation exception to mootness a government must satisfy the "absolutely clear" standard and, if not, to what extent should the government be treated differently from private defendants?

2. Whether the government is owed a presumption of good faith under the voluntary cessation exception to mootness when it retains the authority and interest to reimpose its challenged policy?

3. Whether a claim is capable of repetition yet evading review when the government retains the authority to re-issue a restriction that imposes the same harm in the same way?

Whether government defendants must satisfy the 'absolutely clear' standard under the voluntary cessation exception to mootness