393 U.S. 175 (1968)
Petitioners, identified with the National States Rights Party, held a public rally near the courthouse steps in Princess Anne, Maryland, on the evening of August 6, 1966.1 The authorities did not interfere with the rally, although about 60 state policemen were brought in due to the tense atmosphere.2 The speeches were amplified by a public address system and were aggressively and militantly racist, targeting primarily Negroes and secondarily Jews.3 The crowd grew from about 50 to about 150 people, 25 percent of whom were Negroes.4
It was announced during the rally that it would resume the following night on August 7.5 On August 7, respondents, officials of Princess Anne and Somerset County, applied for and obtained an ex parte restraining order from the Circuit Court for Somerset County without giving notice to petitioners or making efforts to communicate with them informally.6 The order restrained petitioners for 10 days from holding rallies or meetings in the county which would tend to disturb and endanger the citizens.7 As a result, the scheduled rally for August 7 was not held.8
After a trial 10 days later, the Circuit Court issued an injunction on August 30 extending the restraint for 10 additional months.9 The Maryland Court of Appeals affirmed the 10-day order but reversed the 10-month order.10 Petitioners sought review by the Supreme Court, which granted certiorari after petitioners asserted that the case was not moot because they had sought to continue their activities and the decision continued to have an adverse effect.11
Whether the case is moot?12
A case is not moot when the underlying dispute remains unresolved and the issues are capable of repetition yet evading review, as the Court held in Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v. ICC and Bus Employees v. Missouri.13
Yes. The established facts demonstrate that petitioners have sought to continue their activities, including the holding of rallies in Princess Anne and Somerset County, and the decision of the Maryland Court of Appeals continues to play a substantial role in the response of officials to their activities.14 This situation parallels the unresolved labor dispute in Bus Employees v. Missouri that kept the controversy live.15 The facts further show that petitioners pursued judicial review rather than disobedience, consistent with Walker v. Birmingham, confirming the dispute's ongoing vitality.16
The case is not moot.17
Whether the 10-day restraining order issued ex parte without notice to petitioners or any effort to permit their participation in the proceedings is valid?18
An ex parte restraining order affecting First Amendment rights cannot stand without notice to opposing parties or any effort to permit their participation unless it is shown that notification is impossible. Prior restraints require procedural safeguards including an adversary proceeding to ensure balanced analysis and narrow tailoring.19
No. Respondents obtained the 10-day order ex parte from the Circuit Court for Somerset County with no notice given to petitioners and no effort made to communicate with them informally.20 Petitioners were present in Princess Anne after holding a rally the prior evening and scheduling another for the evening the order issued.21 The facts contain no showing that notification was impossible or that reasonable efforts to notify failed.22 This procedural defect invalidates the order regardless of any substantive justification for restraint.23
The 10-day restraining order is invalid.24