removed her from the classroom altogether and placed her in a separate room this is when the harassment jessica was told that her she and her family were on a path to eternal says what we need not know that for purposes of standing analysis without knowing the scope of any relief that might be given in terms of an injunction without knowing what may happen during the course of litigation i think it's it's just simply unrealistic to ask the parents making a decision about their child's education  what may happen during the life of this case i mean these cases the minor plaintiff is using a pseudonym because these are very charged cases there could be threats against the family there could be you know public outcry in the community all requirements of standing should demand that of the plaintiff at the outset of the case i think the appropriate question is can just a cover turn can she return can this court enjoying the obstacle that my clients yes your honor and this is where the district court error and it's where the defendant's urge this court here is to not consider the ongoing injuries that are election there are two one is the ongoing avoidance that is still going on and the second is the ongoing feelings of exclusion that are still going on today the means of avoidance have changed but the injury remains the same just as jessica was awarding the violence schools classroom i've been sent to separate class classrooms subject to her ridicule from her from her peers elizabeth and jessica irvine in the bible in the schools program today just by taking that one step further to further mitigate injury by sending jessica to an outside school elizabeth still resides in mercer county jessica is still primary school age and that is what i was getting at when i when i said that really was for this court is the removal of the obstacle that is sure on the first i want to start with the fact that there's no dispute that there are past injuries defendants don't dispute the despair the finn is trying to dispute that not all damages are designed to compensate for retrospect post complaint evidence that's been introduced by the school that evidence must the school has the burden to demonstrate this case is moot and that burden is well established under the voluntary suspicion doctor and it's a heavy burden it must be absolutely clear that the program will not return the evidence pointed to is woefully insufficient against that standard that really are only newspaper accounts that are pointed to there's no declaration raffa dated from anyone on behalf of the district and the newspaper accounts are very contradictory i mean it's certainly the case that this program has been suspended but less than a month before the suspension of the program the superintendent recommended the suspension is quoted in the newspaper saying we're fighting this case we still hope to win you know we haven't given up so given the lack of evidence from the district i think that it's very clear that the typically involved in the steps of cases and that's not necessarily a comfortable place for someone to have to expose themselves to to go on a witness stand and answer questions about haven't really been harmed have you go do you really deserve so i would like to address the issues of standing in nominal damages and my colleague mr dunham would like to address which is a break and i understand that those issues may overlap and so we're here to answer questions about all of those to the extent the court would like we don't represent  appellee in this case rebecca who i understand was not served and so this court doesn't have personal jurisdiction there is a motion to dismiss her from this case but i don't represent her in that motion nor is ms donna to begin appellants can't bring themselves to say they will benefit from an injunction or from a declaration because they won't take advantage of it well aspect of staying in a situation where the plaintiff's weeding something about which they're playing some kind of religious display that they can whine about that they say of all it's the constitution but their failure to say sure it's a problem because they wouldn't benefit from an injunction they're not being actually used to any kind of conduct that they clearly don't have to state themselves now with respect to their intention to return i think that's right and i think mr schmidt there are cases i think that is probably not been squarely present in any case but nevertheless the cases of the members never serve these kinds of injuries case and i disagree with that because if it was the case that the plaintiff in fact had those injuries then what they should do is plead and prove compensatory damages now those may be small but there is a big distinction between compensatory binding upon research county and that is that this program has been indefinitely canceled and will not return see and will not that doesn't do me any good in the same form as the whole problem it will not return and say i understand that there could be a slightly respect to the representation of counsel insufficient to meet the burden under volunteers who say should but i would point out that on pages two seventy four to seventy five the appendix that's where in the world argument those representation is were made all the council said is have this case dictated by the difference between one dollar and a hundred dollars one dollar of it in a normal judgment one hundred dollars in damages judgment in the supreme court has spoken on this issue not directly but  back is the underlying injury for compensatory damages and a nominal damage claim is the same injury in one case you have damages that can't be demonstrated through pence through compensatory damages recognition there out that there is a i understand that there might be perceived to be a slippery slope here of opening the courthouse to claims that are really seeking advice but there is a slippery slope in the other direction and that is that a government would be given one free pass to violate the t future and i guess i would just close by noting that this circuit has consistently recognize that sort of at the bottom of the standing doctrine is designed to ensure that the right parties bringing an action elizabeth deal and jessica are the right parties here there may be no better parties they are suffering ongoing injuries they are elizabeth continues to reside in a community where she feels like an outsider because of this program and they have felt the full brunt of these injuries in the past and so given the experiences of these plaintiffs and because standing is about finding the right place we would request that the district court decision be reversed and that these plaintiffs be permitted to go