In USA Deli, Inc. v. City of Philadelphia, 2006 Phila. Ct. Com. Pl. (filed May 16, 2006), Council denied USA Deli and Three Main Inc.'s requests for approval to obtain Permits to sell alcoholic beverages to go. In both of those cases, Council posted the Permit application, the hearing examiner recommended approval to Council, a Council member protested against the applicant's request and Council, thereafter, denied the Permit. On appeal, the trial court determined that the process for obtaining a Permit was unconstitutional. The trial court reasoned as follows: Council promulgated the rules of procedure to be followed in Act 39 adjudications (legislative). Act 39 gives a Council person the power to protest against an individual applicant in an adversarial manner (prosecutorial). Council is then responsible for the decision to approve or deny the applicant's request for approval for a permit (adjudicative). Thus, City Council is in command of the legislative, prosecutorial and adjudicative functions of the Act 39 conceptual framework. USA Deli, at 8-9. The trial court further stated that "there is no automatic stay or supersedeas following appeal of the Council's decision...and there is no procedure for an applicant to even request a stay from City Council." The trial court concluded that "Act 39 adjudications violate due process of law under the Pennsylvania Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by allowing the Philadelphia City Council to commingle legislative, prosecutorial and adjudicative functions." The trial court reversed the decision of Council and remanded to Council for proceedings consistent with the opinion.