[00:00:00] Speaker 04:
Good morning.

[00:00:02] Speaker 04:
Sigal Chadda, appearing on behalf of Appellant Jane Doe and Minor John Doe.

[00:00:10] Speaker 04:
I would like to reserve two minutes for rebuttal, please.

[00:00:16] Speaker 04:
Good morning, Your Honors.

[00:00:19] Speaker 04:
This case deals with Administrative Rule 5161 out of Washoe County School District, which establishes guidelines around the treatment of transgender and gender nonconforming students at Washoe County School District.

[00:00:37] Speaker 04:
It prohibits Washoe County School District from disclosing these matters to the parents, along with

[00:00:46] Speaker 04:
penalizing students that refuse to use their colleagues' pronouns and allows the school to discipline these students.

[00:01:01] Speaker 02:
What you're asking the court to do in this case is invalidate AR 5161?

[00:01:09] Speaker 04:
That is correct.

[00:01:09] Speaker 04:
This is a facial challenge of 5161 under the First and Fifth Amendments.

[00:01:16] Speaker 02:
So how has this policy impacted your client?

[00:01:21] Speaker 04:
So the question that we're dealing with on this case is whether

[00:01:26] Speaker 04:
the appellants have standing in this case.

[00:01:29] Speaker 04:
And with that, what we look at is we look at whether there was a sufficient injury to Jane Doe or her son John Doe.

[00:01:39] Speaker 04:
And the injury effect that we had here was that because the mother made these inquiries and challenged

[00:01:46] Speaker 04:
the school policy, subsequent to those challenges, the school started disciplining the minor child.

[00:01:57] Speaker 04:
And a child that never had any disciplinary issues from the school, once the questions and the inquiries were made per the school policy, all of a sudden we have disciplinary issues with this kind of student.

[00:02:11] Speaker 01:
Council, am I correct that the only place that what you just said is mentioned

[00:02:15] Speaker 01:
in the complaint is in paragraphs nine through 11.

[00:02:21] Speaker 04:
as far as the retaliation.

[00:02:24] Speaker 04:
Your Honor, actually the complaint also mentions it in the first paragraph right under nature of action and jurisdiction.

[00:02:34] Speaker 04:
This is the civil action, 42, 1983, seeking damages and injunctive relief against defendants for committing the acts under color of law with the intent and for the purpose of depriving plaintiffs and secured rights under the Constitution.

[00:02:47] Speaker 04:
retaliating against plaintiffs and for refusing and neglecting to prevent such deprivations and denials to the plaintiffs.

[00:02:53] Speaker 01:
But are the only place where you lay out what this retaliation is, is 9 through 11?

[00:02:59] Speaker 01:
That is correct.

[00:03:00] Speaker 01:
That is correct.

[00:03:02] Speaker 01:
And how are the allegations in 9 through 11 sufficient to establish standing?

[00:03:10] Speaker 04:
Because what we're seeking here is a facial challenge of AR 5161.

[00:03:15] Speaker 04:
The facial challenge is not precluded by the fact that a plaintiff does not assert a individual claim for relief for retaliation.

[00:03:27] Speaker 01:
But on the facial challenge, as an example, counsel, earlier in the year in a case where a decision hasn't come out yet, I heard a case from California with

[00:03:37] Speaker 01:
A similar claim, but the allegation in the case I heard was my child for a time was non-binary and I didn't learn of anything to do with my child and my personal familial rights were harmed because I'm the parent.

[00:03:56] Speaker 01:
There are no allegations like that here that anyone ever tried to apply the policies that you're talking about specifically to your client or her child or that any of the things discussed in the policy were things that your client or her child had done or were planning to do, right?

[00:04:20] Speaker 01:
Correct, that is correct.

[00:04:21] Speaker 04:
However, the fact that Washoe County School District has disciplined a child following the mother's inquiries for a school policy in itself is the retaliation.

[00:04:35] Speaker 03:
Well that might make sense if you were asserting a retaliation claim and your injury was a violation of First Amendment rights.

[00:04:43] Speaker 03:
And you wanted relief specific to that, but you want to invalidate this policy.

[00:04:48] Speaker 03:
That's correct.

[00:04:49] Speaker 03:
And the retaliation theory that you're advancing, while I understand it, doesn't seem to connect to the policy.

[00:04:56] Speaker 04:
It does connect to the policy if prior to the policy being questioned, there was no retaliation.

[00:05:06] Speaker 04:
Well, that's not an application of the policy.

[00:05:07] Speaker 03:
That's an implication of First Amendment rights.

[00:05:11] Speaker 03:
That is correct, which is what this is.

[00:05:12] Speaker 03:
But it's not an application of the policy.

[00:05:14] Speaker 03:
And you're asking us, or you're asking in this case, you're not asking us, you're asking in this case for a court to invalidate the policy.

[00:05:22] Speaker 04:
Based on the fact that a mother's inquiry was sufficient enough to trigger a retaliation against a student that was her son.

[00:05:32] Speaker 01:
Is it your allegation now that the retaliation continues?

[00:05:36] Speaker 04:
The retaliation has not continued simply because I believe the student is no longer at this particular school.

[00:05:43] Speaker 04:
I believe the student has gone on to another school.

[00:05:46] Speaker 01:
There's no possibility of the retaliation continuing.

[00:05:50] Speaker 04:
I believe that as far as another student being retaliated against.

[00:05:55] Speaker 01:
But for your client's child.

[00:05:57] Speaker 04:
For my client's child, I don't think that there will be a retaliation in particular to this particular school.

[00:06:07] Speaker 04:
The policy still being in existence, there absolutely might be retaliation because misgendering another student can

[00:06:16] Speaker 04:
result in discipline by Washoe County School District under this code.

[00:06:21] Speaker 04:
But not not to your clients.

[00:06:23] Speaker 04:
If my client misgenders another student, absolutely he will be disciplined.

[00:06:27] Speaker 04:
But he's not at the school anymore.

[00:06:29] Speaker 04:
But he's still within Washoe County School District.

[00:06:31] Speaker 04:
This case is not particular to DePauly Middle School.

[00:06:36] Speaker 01:
You're saying that he's at another school subject to the policy.

[00:06:39] Speaker 01:
Correct, correct.

[00:06:41] Speaker 01:
But as far, would you have nothing to tell us that he's still being discriminated against?

[00:06:47] Speaker 01:
or being retaliated against, I meant.

[00:06:50] Speaker 04:
That's correct.

[00:06:51] Speaker 04:
Now if he does misgender a student at Washoe County School District, then absolutely he will be subject to discipline under this policy.

[00:07:00] Speaker 01:
But you have not, I'm sorry, but you have not alleged anywhere that he ever did it or intends to do it.

[00:07:07] Speaker 04:
No, we have not alleged that because what we have alleged though is that this action is prohibitive under the First Amendment and the deliberate compelling of speech by using pronouns and we've seen this across the country where pronoun specific legislation has been invalidated under the First Amendment.

[00:07:33] Speaker 02:
Do you allege

[00:07:35] Speaker 02:
that John Doe was retaliated against because his mother complained about the policy?

[00:07:42] Speaker 02:
That is correct.

[00:07:43] Speaker 02:
Okay, you're not alleging that he was retaliated against because he used pronouns in a way that violated the policy.

[00:07:50] Speaker 04:
That is correct.

[00:07:51] Speaker 04:
He was subject to discipline now because there was a series of different acts that subjected him to discipline.

[00:07:59] Speaker 04:
That discipline only started after his mother questioned the policy.

[00:08:04] Speaker 02:
Right, but he's not being punished under the policy.

[00:08:07] Speaker 02:
Your view is he was punished because his mother complained about the policy.

[00:08:11] Speaker 02:
That is correct.

[00:08:13] Speaker 02:
It seems like there's just a fundamental disconnect, though, between what you're asking and what happened.

[00:08:18] Speaker 02:
You're asking for this whole policy to be invalidated, but what happened is that his mother complained about the policy, and he was retaliated against.

[00:08:25] Speaker 02:
So it seems very difficult to see how a court could grant relief to on the grounds that the entire policy is out the window.

[00:08:33] Speaker 02:
He may have some argument about retaliation,

[00:08:36] Speaker 02:
But why would we take the whole policy and invalidate it when he's never been really subjected to it?

[00:08:41] Speaker 04:
Well, the question then remains is, was there sufficient information to grant leave to amend to assert those?

[00:08:49] Speaker 01:
You never asked for it, right?

[00:08:50] Speaker 01:
I'm sorry?

[00:08:51] Speaker 01:
You never asked for it.

[00:08:52] Speaker 01:
That is correct.

[00:08:53] Speaker 01:
And in your memorandum in opposition to the motion to dismiss, not only did you not ask for leave to it, you didn't even use the word retaliation in the memo, right?

[00:09:05] Speaker 04:
In the memorandum, that is correct, because this was brought as a First Amendment challenge.

[00:09:10] Speaker 04:
If you were given leave to amend, what would you say?

[00:09:12] Speaker 04:
Well, for example, what we would do is we would include the different disciplinary issues that stemmed from this challenge that the mother had alleged.

[00:09:26] Speaker 04:
Be more specific.

[00:09:27] Speaker 04:
Give me an example.

[00:09:28] Speaker 04:
Well, there was an incident where some of the students were, I don't know if they were making fun of misgendering or not making fun of misgendering, but he was in particularly isolated from that group in the context that he was punished.

[00:09:49] Speaker 01:
Well, what you said in the blue brief, and I'm not sure that you're talking about the same incident, but what you say at page five is he was engaging in purportedly unruly behavior with a group of students.

[00:10:03] Speaker 01:
So you put that in the brief.

[00:10:05] Speaker 01:
What are you telling us as an officer of the court that this purportedly unruly behavior was?

[00:10:11] Speaker 04:
Well, again, I can't tell you for certain what this unruly behavior was.

[00:10:17] Speaker 04:
I know that there was a series of incidents following his mother's challenge of this and the meetings with the teachers that the student had been engaging in some kind of group-like behavior.

[00:10:32] Speaker 04:
The faculty had subject him to discipline.

[00:10:39] Speaker 04:
What was the discipline?

[00:10:41] Speaker 04:
called him to the principal's office, called the mom.

[00:10:44] Speaker 04:
There was no, it wasn't significant suspended from the school.

[00:10:47] Speaker 01:
So the discipline was the principal talked to him and called his mother?

[00:10:50] Speaker 01:
I believe so, yes.

[00:10:52] Speaker 01:
I believe that that was discipline.

[00:10:56] Speaker 03:
Yes.

[00:10:58] Speaker 03:
It sounds like from your discussion that you would not be able to affirmatively allege that after the mom questioned the school's policy, the son was disciplined under AR 5161.

[00:11:11] Speaker 04:
The child was not disciplined under AR 5161.

[00:11:17] Speaker 04:
But again, the facial challenge is based on the fact that this was a retaliatory act following the mother's objection to the curriculum.

[00:11:34] Speaker 04:
If there are no other further questions, I will reserve the rest for rebuttal.

[00:11:38] Speaker 04:
Thank you.

[00:12:07] Speaker 00:
Morning, Neil Rombardo for the Appellee's Washoe County School District.

[00:12:10] Speaker 00:
May it please the court?

[00:12:13] Speaker 00:
This case is about Article 3 standing and appellants lack thereof.

[00:12:18] Speaker 00:
In order to forward a political agenda, appellants filed their lawsuit challenging a school district regulation that neither applies to them nor impacts them.

[00:12:27] Speaker 00:
The district will divide its arguments up into three parts.

[00:12:29] Speaker 00:
First, we'll discuss the eight claims that are actually in the complaint.

[00:12:33] Speaker 00:
Second, we'll discuss a claim that is not in the complaint, the retaliation claim.

[00:12:38] Speaker 00:
And third, we'll discuss leave to amend and why the court properly dismissed this case.

[00:12:43] Speaker 00:
To begin with, the eight claims that are actually in the complaint.

[00:12:46] Speaker 00:
As the court knows, for subject matter jurisdiction, there must be an actual case or controversy, which requires that the party who brings the case must demonstrate standing for each claim and each release sought.

[00:12:58] Speaker 00:
That's the Diamond Chrysler case, page one of the district's brief.

[00:13:01] Speaker 00:
In Lujan, the U.S.

[00:13:02] Speaker 00:
Supreme Court stated that to have Article 3 standing, in a nutshell, the party must have injury in fact, causation, and redressability.

[00:13:12] Speaker 00:
Although the District Court found four injuries in fact in this case, the District Court stated that there was no causation.

[00:13:21] Speaker 00:
In response to the District's motion to dismiss in this case,

[00:13:24] Speaker 00:
The appellants at no point even addressed causation under the federal district court rule 7-2D.

[00:13:31] Speaker 00:
That is consent by the appellants to the granting of the motion.

[00:13:35] Speaker 00:
However, since this court views motions to dismiss and dismissals de novo, legal page one, I'd like to discuss all eight claims.

[00:13:46] Speaker 00:
To begin with, claims 1, 2, 3, and 7 all challenge the transgender students' privacy protection provision of the regulation as a violation of fundamental parental rights.

[00:13:57] Speaker 00:
Again, per Lujan, an injury in fact must be concrete and particular or imminent to the appellants.

[00:14:05] Speaker 00:
which is not the case here.

[00:14:06] Speaker 00:
It cannot be abstract.

[00:14:09] Speaker 00:
Here, Jay Doe, the child at the school, the student, is not transgender.

[00:14:15] Speaker 00:
And as a result, the provision cannot apply to Jay Doe, and by extension, it cannot apply to Jane Doe, period.

[00:14:22] Speaker 00:
And as a result, they don't have standing.

[00:14:24] Speaker 00:
But what also Lujan discussed was general grievances against the government.

[00:14:29] Speaker 00:
And what I'd like to point out, if you look at claims 1, 2, 3, and 7 in the complaint, which is ER 78 to ER 116, all four claims use the possessive plural form of the term plaintiff, plaintiffs.

[00:14:45] Speaker 00:
referring to parents, yet there's only one parent in this case.

[00:14:50] Speaker 00:
Not only does that show the political nature of this case brought by the appellants, but what it shows is that this is a general grievance against government, and that does not give them standing.

[00:15:00] Speaker 00:
It must be particular or concrete to them, and it is not.

[00:15:06] Speaker 01:
The district court dismissed the case, as it said, for a lack of subject matter jurisdiction, right?

[00:15:14] Speaker 01:
Yes.

[00:15:14] Speaker 01:
So by definition, that is a dismissal without prejudice?

[00:15:20] Speaker 00:
Ordinarily, that's the Freigard case, and ordinarily it is a dismissal without prejudice.

[00:15:27] Speaker 00:
However, that's not always the case.

[00:15:28] Speaker 00:
So in Freigard 862, F.

[00:15:30] Speaker 00:
2nd, 201, 1988, this court specifically stated, ordinarily a case dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction should be dismissed without prejudice so that a plaintiff may reassert his claims in a competent court.

[00:15:45] Speaker 00:
I think there's one really important word and one important phrase in that sentence, and that's ordinarily.

[00:15:52] Speaker 00:
So that doesn't mean always.

[00:15:54] Speaker 00:
And the second part is the ability to reassert the claims in a competent court.

[00:16:00] Speaker 00:
And here, as we just laid out with regard to 1, 2, 3, and 7, and we plan on laying out with regards to claims 2, 4, 5, 6, and 8, that this complaint, as alleged, cannot be filed in a competent court.

[00:16:13] Speaker 00:
And there's a case out of the Federal Circuit Court of... The plaintiff wanted to file a complaint tomorrow.

[00:16:18] Speaker 01:
Let's say we, hypothetically, let's say we affirmed, but plaintiff wanted to file a complaint tomorrow that said my child is transgender, this plaintiff, my child is transgender, this dismissal would not bar, and the policy is unconstitutional, this dismissal wouldn't bar that claim, right?

[00:16:39] Speaker 01:
It would not bar it.

[00:16:40] Speaker 01:
And similarly, at whatever school the Doe child is at now, if the allegation was starting today, the principal and the teachers have started to retaliate against me because of my mother's complaints about this policy, that wouldn't be barred by this dismissal, right?

[00:16:59] Speaker 00:
That would also not be barred by this dismissal.

[00:17:02] Speaker 00:
even if with prejudice.

[00:17:03] Speaker 00:
Yes, Your Honor, that is correct.

[00:17:05] Speaker 00:
And that was discussed in the Freigart case as well as preclusion.

[00:17:10] Speaker 00:
There's also an interesting case out of the Arizona Supreme Court, which is, I know, you know, it's persuasive, I think, and it talks about what is precluded and what's not.

[00:17:20] Speaker 00:
And so,

[00:17:21] Speaker 00:
that could be filed even if this is dismissed with prejudice.

[00:17:25] Speaker 00:
And I do think dismissal with prejudice is correct in this case.

[00:17:28] Speaker 00:
As the Field Turf case stated, which is 357 F3rd, 1266, 2004 case out of the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, what the court stated there is dismissal with prejudice may be appropriate, where it is plainly unlikely that the plaintiff will be able to cure the standing problem.

[00:17:46] Speaker 00:
And that's exactly the issue here, is these plaintiffs, the appellants, cannot cure the standing issue.

[00:17:52] Speaker 00:
As we already pointed out, one, two, three, and seven don't even apply to them, and it can't ever apply to them.

[00:17:58] Speaker 00:
With regard to claims four, five, and six, there's a challenge to the anti-discrimination and anti-harassment provision of the regulation.

[00:18:06] Speaker 00:
However, as the court already pointed out, nowhere does the complaint allege that this actually affected J. Doe in any way or Jane Doe in any way.

[00:18:15] Speaker 00:
That J. Doe was disciplined for violating the regulation, that's not alleged.

[00:18:21] Speaker 00:
That J. Doe even intends to engage in a course of conduct that would violate the regulation, again, not alleged in the complaint.

[00:18:27] Speaker 01:
But let's say hypothetically, they had said to the district court, again, hypothetically, we can amend this complaint to demonstrate

[00:18:36] Speaker 01:
that after mom asserted her First Amendment rights and complained about the policy and various things that her child allegedly saw in the courtroom, the child was specifically disciplined and retaliated against because of mom's claim.

[00:19:00] Speaker 01:
That would be something that, if that had been, we would allege that if we're given the opportunity to amend, that would state a claim, wouldn't it?

[00:19:12] Speaker 00:
Well, hypothetically, that's not what's before the court, but yes, hypothetically, that would state a claim.

[00:19:17] Speaker 00:
However, if this court were to dismiss with prejudice, they could still file that complaint.

[00:19:23] Speaker 00:
And that's, I think, the issue here is that a dismissal on these eight claims, which is a facial challenge to this regulation, doesn't bar them from other claims.

[00:19:35] Speaker 00:
The issue here is that these appellants doubled down on this complaint.

[00:19:39] Speaker 00:
They stated this complaint did allege standing appropriately.

[00:19:43] Speaker 00:
They stated that it did bestow the court jurisdiction.

[00:19:47] Speaker 00:
It clearly doesn't.

[00:19:48] Speaker 00:
And that's why the court dismissed it.

[00:19:50] Speaker 00:
And there's no way with regard to these eight claims that they can resurrect this complaint.

[00:19:55] Speaker 00:
This complaint is unsalvageable because they never can have standing.

[00:20:01] Speaker 00:
But if we did what you said,

[00:20:02] Speaker 01:
And they went back and filed a new claim that said on these dates, these old dates, I was retaliated against that the Washoe County School District would not contend that that claim was barred by claim preclusion?

[00:20:21] Speaker 00:
I don't think it would be barred by claim preclusion according to this case law.

[00:20:25] Speaker 01:
All right.

[00:20:25] Speaker 01:
And that's something that Washoe will stick to in the future should that ever happen.

[00:20:30] Speaker 00:
I don't know how the complaint would be alleged.

[00:20:32] Speaker 01:
If they alleged the complaint like it is here, we would... No, but I mean if they alleged what I said hypothetically, that would not be barred by claim comparison.

[00:20:42] Speaker 00:
I don't think it would be based on the case laws you've asked, Your Honor.

[00:20:44] Speaker 01:
All right, thank you.

[00:20:46] Speaker 00:
And finally, sir, moving on with regard to claim a

[00:20:52] Speaker 00:
In claim eight, the appellants are challenging again the transgender privacy protection provision as a violation of their free exercise of religion.

[00:21:00] Speaker 00:
And again, there is absolutely no injury in fact.

[00:21:03] Speaker 00:
There's nothing to connect the adoption of this regulation to a violation of their free exercise.

[00:21:08] Speaker 00:
As already stated, the transgender privacy protection provision does not even apply to Jay Doe or Jane Doe because he is not transgender.

[00:21:17] Speaker 00:
Similarly, I'd also like to point out again, if you look at ClaimAid closely and you look at similar to 1, 2, 3, and 7,

[00:21:26] Speaker 00:
It uses the plural form of the word parents.

[00:21:29] Speaker 00:
And it also uses the plural form of the word children, or for child, children.

[00:21:34] Speaker 00:
But there's only one parent and one child in this case.

[00:21:39] Speaker 00:
And that just shows the nature of the lawsuit that's filed here.

[00:21:41] Speaker 00:
This is not a particularized lawsuit.

[00:21:45] Speaker 00:
There is no injury in fact to these appellants.

[00:21:47] Speaker 00:
And there is absolutely no standing.

[00:21:51] Speaker 00:
With regard to the retaliation claim,

[00:21:55] Speaker 00:
What we have here is, appellants are now attempting to abandon the eight unsuccessful claims that they've already filed in this case for a single retaliation claim, but they've never pled it.

[00:22:06] Speaker 00:
There's three passing references, as the court pointed out, in the complaint to retaliation.

[00:22:10] Speaker 00:
There's absolutely, to this day, the type of retaliation is unknown and undefined.

[00:22:17] Speaker 00:
It's not a claim in the complaint.

[00:22:20] Speaker 00:
In fact, in the 24 page response, they don't mention the word retaliation.

[00:22:25] Speaker 00:
So the question would be, what's the protected activity?

[00:22:28] Speaker 00:
What was the action against the protected activity taken by government?

[00:22:32] Speaker 00:
Was that directed at the protected activity?

[00:22:35] Speaker 00:
And did it dissuade the appellants from conducting that protected activity?

[00:22:40] Speaker 00:
Those are the elements of retaliation.

[00:22:41] Speaker 00:
They're not here.

[00:22:43] Speaker 00:
And as an aside, I'll just point out that to rely on an unpled claim as they are attempting to do today to resurrect this complaint is an acknowledgement that they don't have standing in the other eight claims.

[00:23:00] Speaker 00:
Finally, with regard to leave to amend and why the court's dismissal was proper in this case, as the court already pointed out, at no point have the appellants ever asked for leave to amend.

[00:23:10] Speaker 00:
The appellants did not take advantage of Rule 15, which allows them to amend the complaint within 21 days of our motion to dismiss.

[00:23:18] Speaker 00:
They didn't file their own motion.

[00:23:20] Speaker 00:
They didn't present any new facts or any new language in their response that would connect

[00:23:26] Speaker 00:
the these appellants to these claims that would give them standing.

[00:23:35] Speaker 00:
So

[00:23:38] Speaker 00:
When the district court lacks jurisdiction, it has no choice but to dismiss.

[00:23:43] Speaker 00:
This court has ruled that in Morongo Band of Mission Indians.

[00:23:47] Speaker 00:
And here, it's upon the appellants to plead the three elements of standing.

[00:23:51] Speaker 00:
It's not the responsibility of the court or of the other side to point what's our responsibility to point out, as we did.

[00:23:58] Speaker 00:
But the federal to meet those threshold issues of Article III standing denied the district court subject matter jurisdiction.

[00:24:04] Speaker 00:
And when the courts denied subject matter jurisdiction,

[00:24:07] Speaker 00:
It's very limited what it can and can't do.

[00:24:10] Speaker 00:
And I don't even think it can actually grant a motion for leave to amend, as this court has previously ruled.

[00:24:16] Speaker 00:
It has to dismiss.

[00:24:18] Speaker 00:
So the only issue now becomes whether it was dismissal with or without prejudice and is with prejudice appropriate.

[00:24:25] Speaker 00:
And clearly with prejudice is appropriate in this case because the appellants cannot fix their standing issue.

[00:24:33] Speaker 00:
So in conclusion, here's the reality of this lawsuit.

[00:24:36] Speaker 00:
Every day, the Washoe County School District seeks to honor their 60,000 students, their parents, and their families.

[00:24:44] Speaker 00:
The appellants disagree with the district's position and efforts to honor and respect its transgender and gender nonconforming students.

[00:24:51] Speaker 00:
However, instead of using the proper political process to change the administrative regulation, the appellants chose to file a general grievance lawsuit against the district, which appellants lack standing to bring, and the law does not permit.

[00:25:05] Speaker 00:
As a result, the district respectfully requests that this court affirm the district's court's order, dismissing this case with prejudice for lack of standing, or excuse me, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, pursuant to Rule 12B1.

[00:25:17] Speaker 00:
If there's no other questions, that's it.

[00:25:19] Speaker 00:
Thank you.

[00:25:20] Speaker 00:
Thank you.

[00:25:28] Speaker 04:
At the outset, I'd like to address the statute of, I believe it was Judge Bennett that asked about the statute and if this case is in fact remanded for dismissal with prejudice versus without prejudice.

[00:25:45] Speaker 04:
I think one of the bars that we would see in this case is that the case and controversy originally occurred around January 17th.

[00:25:55] Speaker 04:
2023, and under a 1983 statute of limitations, there would be a bar from bringing this particular case back as far as estoppel is concerned.

[00:26:12] Speaker 04:
And another thing that I'd like to address is that when we talk about the facial challenge that this case is brought under, again, what the court needs

[00:26:27] Speaker 04:
to examine is whether Article III standing was not established based on the issue of the causation, the proper redress, and injury effect.

[00:26:43] Speaker 04:
The injury effect in this case was, in fact, the retaliation that the student suffered following his mother's complaints to the school district.

[00:26:55] Speaker 04:
The causation was that the injury was caused by the school district and the redress is in fact if this court finds that the administrative rule is

[00:27:10] Speaker 04:
found to be unconstitutional, then the redress is that this student will never be subject to any type of discipline for misgendering another student and along with the other policies that 5161 allows us.

[00:27:30] Speaker 04:
So with that, unless there's any other questions, I'd like to.

[00:27:34] Speaker 04:
Thank you.

[00:27:35] Speaker 01:
We thank counsel for their arguments and the case just argued will be submitted.

[00:27:39] Speaker 01:
With that, the court will take a short recess.