do not render them insubstantial.” Goosby v. Osser, 409 U.S. 512, 518, 93 S.Ct. 854, 35 L.Ed.2d 36 (1973). In Goos-by, the Supreme Court reversed the determination by the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit that a suit by Pennsylvania pretrial detainees challenging the denial of their right to vote was barred by an earlier Illinois case that denied only the right to vote absentee while detained. While the earlier decision may have placed the likelihood of success in doubt, it did not address situations in which the right to vote had been denied altogether. As a result, the earlier decision could not be said to have “foreclose[d] the subject,” and the case was remanded for consideration on the merits. Id. at 518, 522, 93 S.Ct. 854. See also Hagans, 415 U.S. at 539-41, 94 S.Ct. 1372 (<HOLDING>). In this case, the plaintiffs challenge the
holding that where a regulation could not fairly be read to have spoken at all on an issue an agencys proposed interpretation of the regulation as it pertained to that issue was not a reasonable interpretation of the regulation holding a states regulation of liquor was not a special sovereignty interest in part because of the pervasive federal interest in the regulation of liquor holding that the challenge to a university regulation was moot because the regulation had been substantially amended holding that plaintiffs suit was not insubstantial because 1 no prior case existed addressing the regulation being challenged and 2 the allegation that the regulation in question violated federal law was not patently irrational holding that pma process is not specific regulation because the requirements are not contained in formal regulation