Carl Gardei sought a declaration that requiring him to stay on Georgia’s sex offender registry violated his constitutional rights. The trial court dismissed the case as moot after a statutory change gave him a route to request removal. The Court of Appeals affirmed for a different reason, treating the lawsuit as a request for an advisory opinion. The Supreme Court of Georgia rejected that reasoning because Gardei alleged an ongoing registration obligation and sought relief from its enforcement, presenting a concrete dispute. It vacated the appellate judgment and sent the case back for review of the trial court’s mootness ruling, which the appellate court had bypassed. The Supreme Court expressed skepticism about mootness but left that question and the merits of Gardei’s constitutional challenge undecided.