colorado we are here today in to combine cases i will speak primarily to the first place that mr miles will love to speak to the second case the court dismissed young the standard that they applied to dismiss the case and this is on page thirteen of the order they said to establish an article three standing to sue state officials in their individual capacity and to present a viable nine hundred eighty three claim the plaintiffs what has to allege that the members of the board or the commissioner individually took specific actions to deprive the plaintiffs of their constitutional rights now the court based its this missile upon it and acted and applied unconstitutional irrevocable presumptions preventing the class members from painting residency status for two issues purposes during the tenure the rule we apply for these defendants apply in montana as a rule that require you to retain the status of out of state residency for tuition purposes and for example in the la fold increase in tuition challenging the challenge in young versus kroft is the fact that they apply a de facto rule that is unconstitutional they apply it by publishing it in the law school catalogue they publish it in the regular university catalog and it says in full do not register for more than six credits person master during the twelve month waiting period right before school starts they really do not make any exceptions that's marlene bombeck the registrar for the university of montana in missoula we alleged the connectivity between the specific the fence and the plaintiffs in young versus cannot get past and they did that because they've recognized that people wanting to go to school will not sit and do nothing for an entire year they're going to pursue educational goals and really able to get any discovery in this case now and young versus prof we were not allowed in the discovery in the actual verses prof which followed they allowed us discovery but we received written discovery had a deposition scheduled about ten days later and the day and for applicants and not applicants alike the rule that is should be applied the is the rule that the claim the crudest when the plaintiff knows or should have known of the injury that was the basis of the action with respect to sarah angelo and bruce klock they knew when they knew of their injury is that moment when they understood that their constitutional rights were violated by this  and overcome the every vital presumption applied by the federal in was all the first point of the first thing that you receive as an application from the university of law school and that's the plaintiffs from ever filing a formal application but it doesn't end there there's a widespread dissemination of information both in the this is only a newspaper which is part of the record and also as part of a guidelines that is handed out by the as well as being communicated to through the use of the application forms that disseminate information of widespread newspaper articles and the registrar's office saying that it's happened right you could never case they are being sued as individuals here i think that's important to remember but i will address cases together  the nine defendants twenty seven cases and then three verses six in the second case so we have really forty five different cases but this and conventional definition of case well we have a cause i think you might see me that's being in for size that's the first thing that i think we have to keep in mind is the elementary is not as judge thomas points south and as if was it knowledge that the lord of it is not a reflection of the university policy the only in the first case none and they because to show all standing under article three you actually have to show that you've been injury you have to at least alleging injury that was that for which the standing this is a question of getting to the court's jurisdiction to stand there for the defendants can put you on the record and the court can properly look at material saying they do not have standing and it is then up to the plaintiffs it's their burden to show all jurisdiction and they have to make at least some sort of miserable showing you know all this sounds like they have a says and i but they did not there is no allegation even allegation that the regents had any thing to do with that statement other anything you saying is true it may turn out to be absolutely true but how do we know that now the because at the when you're trying to establish your  allegation and so then if you're screwed so maybe they can sue the law school maybe they can sue the university but you can't sue an individual for something that you can't even make the they just see that you don't even make an allegation to say this person is personally responsible for that activity didn't make findings that they the underlying issue they well they made findings right with regard to standing they made regattas findings with regard to statutes of mentation remember well i think i think they have to show that they have it because they're being sued as individuals here if they just want to challenge the policy in the of and the implementation of the policy and how the school is doing it they have to sue the school or the university system or the board of regents as an entity that is nothing for you haven't done so far i think they have to show and this was the basis down below that there's before you can proceed with this you have to at least show some sort of personal nexus between that particular defendant and this particulars that's crazy to me that's the feud about what could be do what do they do well one of the ones they ways that the fans you don't have standing and it's not only that they didn't do it here i think there are two elements of here it's the rightness question none of the students none of them took at that challenge the policy one day any chance it partway of the five of the six one but none of them say and the defendants are able to bring it up bring it up challenge it and put a burden of at least having some heard of some sort of showing that he was paraphrasing it for i think probably accurately but the first complaint didn't did not spell out and that was what judge thomas this problem was well as a complaint dismiss was made first right out of the chute they filed a complaint we filed a motion to dismiss then for two years they did not they really had that in front of them and they know what our argument standing usually in this awful lot of unhelpful boilerplate in many cases but it seems to me that we look for purposes of standing to whether the plaintiffs have been injured and i don't has come here are standing issues and this is thomas said in the first case plaintiffs assert that a widespread practice existed within the montana university system to violate the written policy establishing a reliable presumption based on credit hours by substituting a de facto policy of an era but over the sanction the evidence tendered by the plaintiff's lead leads great credence to this argument that's evidence presented without any discovery whatsoever in the first case we have alleged that the defendant and specifically cross i'm going to pick on him because he's in both cases that he distributed and was in made sure that this policy was inforced in an unconstitutional fast fashion in the second case we actually have proof that that is true in the first place it was alleged and not rebutted in the second pelleas actually introduced the policies and procedures manual of the border regions and it's because of it for in their supplemental excerpts of record and i don't tend and this exact policy is transform a motion to dismiss under twelve b section i assume under twelve being run in a motion for summary judgment by the submission of items of evidence so that is no longer determined merely upon the cleaning and i gather there were some haven't actually matters in front of did you ask for further discovery in both cases and my recollection and i think the record will prove correct on this we asked to file an amended complaint in younger says kroft the first case that sat for two years and were denied  and we did that around the time the court was actually having a hearing think we filed the formal briefs in that act hearing asking and you are also asked for additional discovery in the second case we asked for additional discovery which was gran really be standing but number ten in the policy that was affective during these cases it says the commissioner this is process in consultation with the unit shall prepare an operations manual to implement this policy that's exactly what we're complaining about we have a policy adopted by the border regions which creates a rebuttable presumption but in fact it's being applied by every single unit of the university system in an unconstitutional fashion because it is an presumption the proof of that which exists in the second case is this exhibit shows that he was assigned the task cross of implementing the residency policy and that's exempt six paragraph  he consulted with the units to implement that and he prepared an operations manual for the system as a whole to implement the policy now he's charged and the border regions in the first case are charged with financial welfare of the university system but when they go beyond the constitutional boundaries that they're obligated to to stay within they do something more in this case they're really balancing this student you can't go below six credits you can't go below ten credits all of the other university catalogues in their record say that what do voters think the worst is that they don't feel that period in bold does not run for injured of time for which you were in the role for seven or more credits crossus charged with implementing a policy that is being disseminated in every unit of this university system in the state of montana at the outset based on standing the second case it does need a little speaking of the court determined that non africans cannot be victims of this policy at least their claim is not right well that's not the case there is no requirement to apply to be a victim and the court i think nine applicants you mean people who are students who have not applied for in state status right because they read a letter that one of their friends  regions made a significant change the policy it didn't change then in fashion or in writing if you came one that passes constitutional muster but in practice the students are being treated as out of state students regardless of where they were