the student is an inherent or religious domination of a certain theology the district court said that the fact that the silo was attending the preschool to get him and rolled in a licensed day care of the youth program and then be to not so you have to subject yourself to it and come back with some sort of denial now we raise an equal protection he attended school or preschool and now we're into the kindergarten phase is a different scenario we have every year parent passed to  and sorry did you make me protection argument in the district court yes we had equal protection claim we said we had standing under equal protection we specifically  brief that so that it was in the petition in we said we have standing under the equal protection claim the benefits daycare licensed day care youth programs he does not qualify terry does not qualify and there is the barrier so this court it's like the voting cases citizenship in cases that the court has just recently decided which said that look when you have a regimen a statute that requires some photo i d or proof of citizenship the voter doesn't have to actually have to go try to vote or even attempt to comply standing is conveyed by virtue of the regimen itself this is what the court ruled  the recently in fish the schwab and then they cited the general contractors the city of jacksonville the supreme court case which said injury in fact an equal protection case is that not all of equal treatment resulting from the imposition of the barrier not the ultimate inability to obtain the benefit so but yet the district court i said that we had to come back and say we were actually denied the benefit so and it does not now we have to he has to enter into a kindergarten school we are disqualified from getting either homeschooling  do you read the district court decision as dismissing the case on standing based on the face of the complaint or do you think it also relied on the schmidt and gus declarations  the the complaint was dismissed for lack of standing based on facial attack on the complaint as opposed to a factual attack on the complaint i'm just trying to figure out what school she that's irrelevant but then she went into a factual determination that there was no allegation that we had tried to get the youth program or any of those other services now maybe she got that from the face of the complaint as well all right well that actually leads me into to the next question i wanted to ask you and that it has to do with your your interest in private school or home schooling the supreme court said in lieu hon that without some description of a plan some when that day will come  go back to the nile and they want to go back to places and watch and observe but they had no hope they had bought an airplane ticket and so they intended to go out and enjoy endangered species while at the they had made an plants and so why is this case different that it's an expression of interest but but where where in the record does it show that anything's been done no well no it's not  terry expressed more than interest she said that she was contemplating wanted one of the option to send him to daycare but you cannot plan on sending him to daycare when you're already disqualified cannot raise the child according to her religious beliefs no matter what the student and of course the equal protection part of that problem is even as which we students silo is fifty dollars for three you can even be a religious and here are inherent to religious nomination so only older students can attain to that status so even if i mean what am i supposed to do interview siloed today hate silo  do you feel about vaccinations do you have a religious belief it's an absurdity so it's a new possibility so he will never qualify for that so that it is the barrier right there that we can't do it and then it's to the exemption for daycare and alana terri doesn't qualify cheap she is simply not going to plan to do something that you're not qualified for she like to homeschool she doesn't qualify for that the same vaccine requirements are required there is it is here can we get private schooling no we're disqualified and  right now we're talking to the school about his i e p we made it night p i g e n eight claim in the petition and so this idea that kids are going to have to wear a mask and you know good luck herding cats on that and he needs to see lip sees he has a hearing issue and needs to see lips so it's we're talking about the ip that probably won't even work but we've not entered into the school we're not doing anything scope this point we would like to try to do something else but we can't do it in it's that barrier that we're asking the court to declare allow us to have standing this school year that she wants to have these services we can't get i don't know how else to say it in a petition but we're back in the parenting business and we'd like licensed day care we would like to have community youth program we can't get there when you say you can't get there but you haven't been denied an opportunity to get there right you just have assumed that it would be denied i'm not assuming the statute itself says you have to be a real and hear it every religious nomination kerry is not expert on what it is to be an adherent she says and i think you have to accept it she says she's not and why why do we have to accept her position that the state would deem her not to be an adherent when we have reason to believe based on the fact that yours in that silo is attending school without objection that that wouldn't be interpreted that way that was last year now this is a new year but to is to say that you have a facial statute that says you have to say you have to write give a written statement that the parent is an in i mean a lot of controversy is still ongoing well but we are what we need to isn't our task reviewing whether it's history court got it right or wrong when the district court decided well  that's true and i believe he entered erred in the fact that he said that we have to apply to get licensed day care or that this idea that he's attending school on a temporary basis discretion case this isn't a prosecutorial discretion case these the school district has to follow the statute and the regulations are out there they are live in there by brick and they are being enforced every day and they're being enforced today in the real world of terri in silence we just cannot get those services because there is the barrier and we think that is enough to convey standing just as a voter asked standy she doesn't have to go is also with us today an assistant attorney general for the state of kansas and he will be speaking on behalf of the state defendants i'm going to try to reserve about five minutes for mr chalmers to address the court as well you honour's the district court properly dismissed this case for lack of jurisdiction because miss baker does not have standing ms baker doesn't have standing for two relatively simple and interrelated re ms baker son silo was enrolled at blue valley schools for his nd school year and he was under x in a good at the time that ms baker filed this lawsuit ms baker concerned that someday blue valley might change its mind and decide to revoke its acceptance of her religious objection statement to vaccinations on silos be half that concern is entirely based on her own speculation there is no concrete injury articulated in the complaint for this case and there is certainly no impending injury because blue valley has never threatened to revoke its acceptance of that religious objection statement there's been no change in law that would suggest that lew valley might revisit that decision nd and related to the st point ms baker doesn't need any relief from this court required to accept her religious objection statement as written and it was except that nothing has happened from the realities perspective to change anything and there is nothing for this court to fix between these parties blue valley and ms baker the this lawsuit is miss baker has filed will not leave her any better off she simply doesn't need relief from this court ms baker's complaint as it and revoke acceptance of a religious objection statement that it has had in place for two school years at the time this complaint was filed the plaintiff here miss baker is the one bearing the burden to establish that she has standing to sue blue valley and she hasn't done that the stand in question is not as she has suggested in briefing whether valley should have in some way harmed her or siloed by rejecting the religious objections statement that she submitted that turns the standing inquiry on its head as a district court properly noted the question is whether in the real world valley in fact has harmed miss baker or is threatening in some way to harm miss baker by rejecting the religious objection statement that was already made the the declaration that mr baker mentioned from a senior administrator overseeing the health services department from blue valley was submitted as part of our motion to dismiss briefing and all that declaration says is that nothing has changed throughout perspective the the district accepted the religious objection statement that it received silos and rolled and it has nothing has changed there is no expectation anything other than disputing and miss baker's suggestion that came out of nowhere the blue valley is likely to change its mind the complaint itself provides says essentially what the district court i believe relied on which is the basic fact that silo isn't old and labelling has accepted the religious objection statement and so whatever disagreement ms baker may have with the law as written she hasn't been harmed by that law at least bible valley or b its policies why i don't why did the district court grant an exemption when the bakers didn't say that s f b is an adherent of a religious the nomination as as as the statute provides the six to sixty statute provides we are you're out of the statute doesn't require any sort of magic words be stated by the parent when seeking a religious exemption does d it does it does a standard doesn't it lays out a standard your honor but as i said no magic words to the standard as as mr baker has already mentioned that be an inherent to a religious denomination who religious teachings are opposed to vaccinations but there is no requirement that the school require a specific recitation of those words and in this situation well no i understand that but the statute says the i read the letter it's stating an objection based on the family's belief system but regardless even if mr baker were correct as an academic matter that that blue valley had some  actually one that bear some noting because their entire theory here is that lvalues should have rejected this religious objection statement and therefore in their fear of the case in doing that would have violated silos constitutional rights and ms baker's constitutional rights which is a theory that is hard difficult to understand even at the outset but the reality is they the school district accepted this statement and because he's an old blue valley schools the complaint doesn't include by the way any allegation that ms baker hesitated to submit this statement to blue valley that she was concerned but by distance of the statute that it would be rejected there's no allegation like that there is no allegation that lou ballet dictated or coerced the way that her statement was provided the allegations are very simple she said she submitted the statement it was accepted and sila has gone to school and siler means in school i'd like to briefly address a point mr baker brought up that i i believe the court has already noted is is not relevant to this standing question but since you brought it up mr baker h a seven to six to doesn't doesn't really affect this this case at all because ms baker has not been harmed by that statute or blue valley's policy implementing that statue i can see that i'm getting very close to my five minutes i promise mr chalmers so if the court doesn't have any further questions i would ask in closing that the court affirmed the district court's ruling dismissing this case because miss baker lack programs that try i understand the equal protection argument to be would be judged in the cottage described as an equal footing doctrine and in this show it's case that's allow the auction be tried in fill in some of the facts that were needed and there's some reason why that doesn't make sense here i think that's what you would do in a pro se case i'm not sure that i found faces where that really applies in the non pro but here is even the facts that have been described by counsel don't cure is problem it still is a sunday d sort of things well if she can't do this if the child can't get into big you're in then we might be counselor excused thank you thank you