Co., 345 U.S. 629, 73 S.Ct. 894, 97 L.Ed. 1303 (1953); Jeius for Jesus v. Hillsborough County Aviation Auth., 162 F.3d 627, 629 (11th Cir.1998). Otherwise, a party “could moot a challenge to a practice simply by changing the practice during the course of a lawsuit, and then reinstate the practice as soon as the litigation was brought to a close.” Jews for Jesus, 162 F.3d at 629. Only when “the defendant can demonstrate that ‘there is no reasonable expectation that the wrong will be repeated’ ” are federal courts precluded from deciding the case on mootness grounds. W.T. Grant Co. 345 U.S. at 633, 73 S.Ct. 894 (quoting United States v. Aluminum Co. of Am., 148 F.2d 416, 448 (2d Cir.1945)); see also Aladdin’s Castle, 455 U.S. at 289 n. 10, 102 S.Ct. 1070; Jews for Jesus, 162 F.3d at 629 (<HOLDING>). The question we must decide, then, is whether
holding that the airport authoritys change in policy rendered the case moot because the change was a result of substantial deliberation and had been consistently applied for three years holding that a change of venue has no affect on the applicable state law and that change of venue is but a change of courtrooms holding court cannot change custody without showing that change is in best interests of child holding that a permanent change in income constitutes a substantial change in circumstances justifying a reduction of alimony holding that court must remand to the agency to determine whether intervening change in policy applied retrospectively rather than modifying agencys order to incorporate the change