founded a decade ago to ensure that good parents are connected to resources necessary to protect their children educational right without respect to race is just an economic that that mission is what led it to that in tw operations in order to establish injury that impairment normally takes the form of an opportunity cost where the organization must devote its resources to the problem at hand here the racial quota rather than another of the usual activit none of them involve laws or actions that that operate the rectally on the organization of such i'll quickly go through the fire relevant cases in written raygun the organization there was simply a nonprofit w trouble grasping the breast of your theory here essentially is if you're saying that the way the parents union is injured here is that it has to spend money educating against this law hypothetical and see if this helps suppose the a c l u comes to court and says we've we're in existence for many many years and we do lots of different programs and  one of them is women's rights another one is st amendment law but now the government has started a program of warrantless foreign surveillance electronic surveillance and we think that's a really serious problem and so we've devoted a lot of resources now to that and we've brought this lawsuit and we've conducted public forums and we've spent a lot of money leading the charge against this law but as a result we're doing less  by the supreme court saying they didn't have standing and they were rather foolish because they went to a lot of trouble trying to figure out whether they were injured in their ability to represent clients for fear of being electronically surve ed but all they really have to do it seems like is say we you know we dislike this law so much that we had to divert resources from our other projects to dealing with this problem i think the upper with d more that the injury would not only you're right that's right and but if they had if they had used your theory we would never had to go there because you're saying that this theory would have worked because they could just have said you know we had to put a lot of money into attacking this this the patriot act and so that's that harms us and harms our other mission whether or not our activities back at those cases and i recently had another one involving the public charge regulations in the immigration area but as i recall what was argued there was that the existence of the law led led to a heavy demand on their counseling services which they provided and thus increased the cost to them of doing something they were doing already which is providing counseling services but it seems to me like what you're saying is just the diversion that that somebody could be harmed by the very fact that they've chosen to oppose this law as part of their mission and that distracts them from other parts of their mission which i'm not sure that i've seen any case that the teachers that argument as such well the st roun services has increased because of some change in this in this law that now they're getting a lot of calls about this topic that they didn't get before i didn't know that launched a fitness a long standing  have a couple of questions which may cover the cover some of which you've already said in response to to my colleagues question and your theory of standing as i understand  care not about the individual law that it's challenging so just any education law chances are the parent in wouldn't wouldn't have standing to challenge to anything if it if it didn't show want to go and what do you make of the stink between social services organizations and advocacy organizations me ask you about reduced isolation standards i take it you are alleging that the standard made it more john cunningham on behalf of commissioner cardona and the connecticut defendants opposing counsel may please the court this case should be dismissed for two separate reasons st as the district court held the plaintiffs the connecticut parents union has failed to show constitutional injury is mere opposition to well established state policy suffices to establish constitutional injury virtually no interest group or lack standing in front of a court and in this case for good matter the does not even contain a parent or student so it would allow such a group to challenge interdistrict magnet schools run by each school district in connecticut and five breasts containing no students the nd reason this case should be dismissed is that since this appeal was filed the commissioner of education has issued a penalty waiver to all interdistrict magnet schools this fundamental change renders planche challenge me when i st discussed the standing more difficult or more expensive the connecticut parent union is arguing for an expansion of circuit precedent the tentative parents unions plenary vision of article three standing would effectively exist or eight the law standing to allow article three standing based on merely allocating resources in opposition to a state law would be a marked step further than the holding and central it would permit every interest group to have standing to challenge laws with which they disagree this would completely swallow article three limitations and this case would allow the interest group to assert claims affecting connecticut's or district magnet schools this is completely contrary to the supreme court's explanation that the decision to seek judicial review is placed in the hands of those who have a direct stake in the outcome and not in the hands of concern by standards who will use it simply as a vehicle for the vindication of value interests and if there's considerable federalism concerns given that public education is largely a state and not  federal matter the plentiful was on at least four cases from this court which it argues are completely consistent with the finding of standing here and i know all the judges on this panel are very familiar with this issue having dealt with it recently judge lynch i know  expended monetary resources to support its own members it was not merely a disagreement with policy which is the case here and in particular the mapi quote war and manufactured litigation standing cases and particularly discus a rd circuit case where the litigation was manufactured by a group coming loose papers to find violation of housing discrimination acts that's essentially what has happened here iraq and i would say opposing counsel use the word troubling but if you look at the an organization expend resources to counteract at tibby that harms its core activities it may have standing but the expenditure of resources must be a result of the harm to the activity and in some threat was the service to the  foster parents and as i stated before the connecticut parents union contains no parents contains no students and the challenge concerned lack of adequate foster care make its payments now opposing counsel referred to the fact that  this case helps him because he said there was testimony from his samuels about fielding calls and i need to be clear about this what happened at the oral argument was that judge underhill began questioning ms daniels she was not under oath this was not testimony he had a discussion with her she read the transcript he asked composing counsel if he wanted to there was a discussion about whether there would be a proper judge under so said he didn't care and then he engaged in a question a back and forth with mr daniels was not testimony we don't think it's proper to to account for it in your decision and also the more cases been discussed and that's  person counsel argued that case all i can say is that it was a similar challenge involve the school the way the schools were chosen in new york city and this quote of the end of the day did not conclude there was standing it said even if the planet s within the commissioner's authority to define which students are considered reduce isolation and what penalty to impose indeed the complaint makes clear that the connecticut parent unit is really challenging the two thousand and seventeen memorandum which has been or mention a compliance plan but the compliance plan is not a penalty justice kennedy's concurrence in the seattle school's case makes clear that schools can pursue policies designed to increase the diversity of schools these compliance plans do such a thing they're simply or threatening to enforce the seventy five percent cap on black and hispanic students who may attend interdistrict magnet schools in the state of connecticut that's not in the appendix at page twenty watt the two thousand and twenty memorandum does exactly that it takes away the penalty when the cattle talked about how the number could be repealed at any time what i would say to that is again what they were essentially challenging is the model so they can turn around and say well the memo could be changing time well it was changed and furthermore support for the fact that the state will not go back on it is that in the hartford area magnet schools the state has already gone to a race neutral system and i might add the study conducts the lottery in the hartford area magnet schools the so called chess magnet schools it does not conduct a lottery for the rest of the state i would also like to to point out that if you look at ms samuels affidavit i think it portrays a very different picture of the organization than counsel did i think it makes clear that before learning of the two thousand and seventeen memorandum the connected parents you named gage and things like lobbying over bills concerning residency issues and i think once counsel when asked by judge lynch he could really not give a limiting principle for this concept and whatever the case is of the circuit have said i think we are now at the point where there has to be a limiting principle or there or there or there's just no barrier whatsoever to article three it and to that point we would we would i'm sorry you have a minute left thank you so much and just in closing i would say our position is that judge grassers opinion doug young advocates most makes the most sense if this court is to have any standing under article three in that case the playing f like the connecticut parents union was really an advocacy group with an opposition to a change in the law concerning schools and  parents whose children were impacted by the act were forced to seek assistance from a c t p u nor does it allege quote that the parents unique in other words it is an injury only kaley traceable to a challenge law or policy when the organizational play to its quote force and quote to address that challenge law what is a being to be quote forced to expend resources in opposition to a challenge law question i have another one follow up  cut case right and then i think you have the importance of the social service organizations which at which at least have membership and something that you can cling onto in terms of come compulsion and i just think that that's lacking in this  case like i said there's no evidence of membership of the connecticut parents union and in the case also brought by opposing counsel in the harper region there were actual parents and students as plaintiffs so i think there needs to under their argument they could challenge any education law in the state of connecticut as long as they could find you know an equal protection hook or something else i don't see why they wouldn't be able to if they're allowed standing in this case i hope that answers your question  law that d they disagree with standing doctrine has some living principles requires that your organization have a core mission that the  organization services being paired in some way by d its exercise of opposition to a policy or legislation so in are ok i i don't think that it does mean it i think that again if you look at the samuels affidavit and the pleadings in the complaint you will see that this is an advocacy group and i really think that that's a very big difference it's very clear that they do not like these laws and policies are very i should say the connected parents union yet does not like the connecticut's current laws and policies they've affectively lobbied to change that they've tried to up support they have met with legislators i understand all of that but i think that that is very different than these cases in the social services social service organizations including the one that your honor dealt with in your decision in an  october i think that there's a clear distinction drawn and again this is this is what judge glasser talks about in his decision so i do not think if you read the affidavit and if you read the complaint and again i would just repeat that i don't  i know that judge underhill sort of took the case a little differently than both myself and opposing counsel was different counsel at trial but at the trial level but you know we've mostly focused on injury i suppose  but i do think that there is a i do think that it should be rooted back in the fact that allowing a group that has no parents and no students to affect statewide in her district magnet schools of which none of their members attend another member's applied to attend i think that that's a far cry from what this court has allowed and i think that it's completely contrary to even what the supreme court talks about in