Ellington, Justice. Five University System of Georgia (“USG”) professors[1] filed suit to block a 2017 statutory amendment that removed public colleges and other public postsecondary educational institutions from the statutory definition of “school safety zone.” Before the 2017 amendment, carrying or possessing a weapon on any real property or in any building owned by or leased to any postsecondary educational institution was a misdemeanor, and the 2017 amendment decriminalized that conduct. The professors alleged that, as a result of the 2017 amendment, the Code requires the Board of Regents, the USG, and USG institutions to permit persons to carry or possess weapons on the campuses of public postsecondary educational institutions, contrary to longstanding USG policies. The professors sought a declaration that the statutory amendment is unconstitutional as applied because it usurps the Board’s constitutional authority to govern, control, and manage the USG and its member institutions. The trial court granted the State of Georgia’s motion to dismiss the complaint and denied the professors’ request for declaratory relief, ruling that the trial court lacked jurisdiction on three alternative grounds, including mootness. Because the complaint shows that the Board adopted gun-carrying policies consistent with the 2017 statutory amendment, the question of whether the amendment usurped the constitutional authority of the Board to govern, control, and manage the USG and its member institutions became moot. Consequently, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the professors’ as-applied challenge, and we affirm the judgment dismissing the professors’ complaint on that basis alone. Georgia’s constitution provides for judicial review of statutes. See Ga. Const. of 1983, Art. I, § II, Par. V (a) (Legislative acts in violation of the constitution “are void, and the judiciary shall so declare them.”). An action against the State of Georgia in the superior court for a declaratory judgment is the appropriate litigation mechanism for such review, and enforcement of unconstitutional statutes may be enjoined. See Ga. Const. of 1983, Art. I, § II, Par. V (b)[2]; OCGA §§ 9-4-2; 9-4-3. A declaratory judgment may be entered, however, only in the case of an “actual controversy,” OCGA § 9-4-2 (a), where the plaintiff needs “relief from uncertainty and insecurity with respect to rights, status, and other legal relations.” OCGA § 9-4-1. See Gwinnett County v. Blaney, 275 Ga. 696, 703 (1) (572 SE2d 553) (2002). “[T]he proper scope of declaratory judgment is to adjudge those rights among parties upon which their future conduct depends.” Sexual Offender Registration Review Bd. v. Berzett, 301 Ga. 391, 393 (801 SE2d 821) (2017) (citation and punctuation omitted). There can be no actual or justiciable controversy if the questions in the case have become moot. See id. “A petition for declaratory judgment is moot when the relief, if granted, would have no practical effect on the underlying controversy.” Id. In particular, a court “has no province to determine whether or not a statute, in the abstract, is valid[.]“ Fourth St. Baptist Church of Columbus v. Bd. of Registrars, 253 Ga. 368, 369 (1) (320 SE2d 543) (1984). See also Berzett, 301 Ga. at 396 (“[I]t is a settled principle of Georgia law that the jurisdiction of the courts is confined to justiciable controversies, and we will not decide the constitutionality of a law where no justiciable case or controversy is presented.” (citation and punctuation omitted)). When a petition for declaratory judgment is moot, the trial court is required to dismiss the action. See id. at 395-396; see also Baker v. City of Marietta, 271 Ga. 210, 214 (1) (518 SE2d 879) (1999) (“Where the party seeking declaratory judgment does not show it is in a position of uncertainty as to an alleged right, dismissal of the declaratory judgment action is proper[.]“). In this case, taking the allegations in the professors’ amended complaint as true,[3] the complaint shows that there is no actual, justiciable controversy to authorize declaratory relief. The complaint alleges the following. The Georgia constitution endows the Board with plenary authority over the USG and its member institutions.[4] To promote its educational mission and to ensure a safe learning, working, and research environment, the Board has prohibited guns within the USG since at least as far back as 1810. The Georgia Code previously mirrored the USG’s no-guns policy, specifically, by providing in OCGA § 16-11-127.1 that university campuses were “school safety zones” where carrying or possessing a weapon, including a firearm, triggered criminal penalties.[5] More recently, the General Assembly declared “that the regulation of firearms and other weapons is properly an issue of general, state-wide concern” and prohibited counties and cities from regulating in any manner the possession or carrying of firearms. OCGA § 16-11-173 (a), (b) (1) (2005).[6] In 2014, the General Assembly greatly expanded the areas where licensed gun owners could take their weapons.[7] The General Assembly also added state authorities, including any “board,” to those entities expressly prohibited from regulating the possession or carrying of firearms or other weapons.[8] At that time, carrying weapons was still restricted on college campuses under the statutes regulating “school safety zones.”[9] The complaint also shows that, after years of opposition by the Board and USG institution leaders to proposed “campus carry” legislation, the General Assembly in 2017 amended the definition of “school safety zone” to remove the criminal penalties for carrying weapons on college campuses, with several exceptions. See Ga. L. 2017, p. 341, § 1 (HB 280).[10] In the absence of the statutory provision that criminalized carrying guns on university and college campuses, as it existed prior to the 2017 amendment (HB 280), OCGA §§ 1611-127, 16-11-127.1, and 16-11-173 operate together to require that guns be allowed on USG campuses in ways that the professors allege are contrary to “the Board of Regents’ and University System institutions’ own duly adopted policies reflecting their independent judgment.” After the governor approved HB 280, the Board’s chancellor provided guidance to USG institutions to “implement the law as written” and called for each institution to “review its campus conduct and weapons policies to ensure that they comply with these changes to the law.” The Board of Regents then amended its Policy Manual and adopted a weapons policy, applicable to all USG institutions, that largely mirrored the 2017 statutory amendments, including the definitions of “weapon” and “concealed” and the authority of weapons carry license holders to carry handguns on USG campuses, subject to the same exceptions set out in the 2017 amendment to OCGA § 16-11-127.1. In the complaint, the professors articulated in detail reasons they believe that the revised policy regarding the carrying of weapons on USG campuses, following the 2017 statutory amendments, greatly increases the risk of injury and death to themselves, their students, and other persons on USG campuses, and significantly impairs their ability to fulfill their role in the educational mission of the USG. The crux of the professors’ constitutional challenge to the 2017 amendment is that, in adopting the amendment, the General Assembly, to the detriment of the USG’s educational mission, “usurp [ed] the Board of Regents’ constitutionally conferred, exclusive authority over the government, control, and management” of the USG, specifically, the Board’s “authority to regulate, in its independent judgment, guns on college campuses.” The professors alleged that they are injured by what they deem a “separation-of- powers violation.”[11] They argue that the trial court erred to the extent that it dismissed their claim as moot, arguing that, “[a]s a matter of law, a separation-of-powers violation is not mooted by the fact that the encroached-upon entity has acquiesced — or even affirmatively approved of — the encroachment.” The professors acknowledge the absence of Georgia precedent for this principle and cite as persuasive authority several United States Supreme Court cases. But even assuming we found these federal cases persuasive, they do not lead to a conclusion in this case that the professors’ claims are not moot. These federal cases share a common thread that does not run through this case. In those cases, a legislative act challenged on separation-of-powers or Tenth Amendment grounds directly caused the harm complained of, such that some indication of agreement with the legislative act by the allegedly-encroached-upon entity could not moot a challenge to the legislation.[12] Here, in contrast, the Board formally took its own action to adopt a particular policy, and it is this policy, not any legislation, that is causing the state of affairs about which the professors complain. In determining that this action by the Board moots the professors’ challenge to the 2017 amendment, we do not concern ourselves with why the Board took this action. We do not look behind the exercise of government power to determine the subjective reasons — legal, political, or otherwise — for a particular action, so long as the action was within the government actor’s authority. Indeed, it is difficult to conceive of a significant executive- or legislative-branch action where the knowledge of the positions of various other governmental actors will not factor into the decision. Here, what matters is not why the Board adopted the policy in question, but merely that it did do so. Granting the only relief the professors seek — a declaration that the 2017 amendment to OCGA § 16-11-127.1 constituted a separation-of-powers violation — would not eliminate the harm of which the professors complain, because it would not eliminate the immediate source of that alleged harm — the weapons policy adopted by the Board. That this sought-after relief would not redress the professors’ stated grievance means that this case is moot. The trial court thus did not err in dismissing the professors’ complaint. See Berzett, 301 Ga. at 394-396; Baker, 271 Ga. at 214-215 (1); Fourth St. Baptist Church, 253 Ga. at 369 (1). Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur, except Warren, McMillian, and Pinson, JJ., disqualified.
