base number eighteen five four to six bobby him smith and others versus tipton county board of education arguments not to exceed fifteen minutes per side mr crone for the your honor i come before this panel to represent bobbie smith and the hard working men and women at the tenet at the tipping county school board who had their dubey to information disclosed to a third party because of the actions of the administrative staff at that school board and were essentially here today to talk about the meaning of the word administration a discussion only a room full of lawyers could enjoy but it's an important discussion and i'd like to start at the district court opinion that from which we're here today and it's it's the procedurally we're here because the court ruled against us on a twelve b six motion emotional in the pleadings and she ruled the court ruled as a matter of law that the tipping county school board does not administer the the snap act in the snack snap backed benefits but i've read the opinion several times and i really can't find a holding in the opinion and i really can't find anywhere in the opinion where there's a legal distinction that's made it seems to me that there's a sensually a factual determination that the court made that they don't administer something now it comes down to this the court said there's no connection between these two programs the snap program and the nutrition lunch program except the one connection and the connection is the court says this there's a automatic eligibility requirement built into the snapback that recipients of snap benefits are supposed to receive free school lunches is that a provision of the snap statute yes your honor it is it it's it provides that if you that if you're eligible for the snap benefits then you're eligible for the food and nutrition act and and so it's a submitted by the school board they do three things to administer the act the first is they determine from they issue an application to the parents that that asked if they are recipients and ask them put to provide a number that the t d h s tennessee department of human services assign someone who receives these benefits and that provides them eligibility at  the district level then they check that against the state's records to make sure that it's with judgment number and it's a legitimate benefit and then they issue the lunches to these folks so they do take active if that we know of now we haven't done any other discovery in this case to know whether or not there are other administrative acts that go along with this that's the only ones that that the the school board has admitted to  these proceedings so there is active in ministration now the i'm sorry think you're making a leap to say there is activity ministration of the snap act by just seeing whether someone has a snap number well i suppose your honor that you and i and reasonable minds can differ about that but that seems to me that at the very least this is a jury question is it a fact question or is it an interpretation of the statu well the court lays out a definition that everybody seems to agree to it's in our brief it's in the the school district brief as to what it minister is she sets it out in the  the opinion and then really doesn't go back to it but basically says that the oxford american dictionary defines administer to manage be responsible for well the running of be responsible for the implementation or use of or give help or service now the school board you agree that that is the proper definition i would agree that that's that's the proper definition i think we've all accepted that definition and so all three of those of the school board has accused us in the briefs of ignoring two of the elements we focused on give help or service again i believe that it's clear that they're giving help or service in what way i'm not sure i'm i'm with you on hell that done there's an automatic eligibility and it's that giving help or service absolutely because if this if it wasn't for the school board then someone could write a number and if the school board isn't checking to make sure that person is eligible there can be that's different there's some administering the forms but i think you called it a certain level than tangle meant between the two right between the school board and the lunch program right that's i'm wondering if you couldn't agree that there's a good level of untangle meant could be different than what they exactly do you target as the giving of help and service that we know of your honor because we haven't conducted discovery on this issue what we know is what they've admitted which is they're checking the eligibility requirements which which certainly gives help or service personally i think that's helping to manage it and i think that makes them responsible for it ok because if they let thirty kids come in and get lunches with that weren't eligible i guarantee you a number of federal agencies and state agencies would hold them school lunches that gives more resources to those families for breakfast and dinner and so it's it's all intertwined and again i'm not saying that they're doing all the paperwork i'm not saying they're doing everything i'm saying they're administering it under the plain meaning of the word administer and there's no statutory reason there's no moral reason there's no legal reason to read this narrowly because if if someone is in trusting whether it's an employee like my clients or participants and organization with their tax information don't we want those those agency response representatives to be more than less careful with that information and if there's no liability for disclosing that information then that puts that puts all of the public at risk for the for disclosure and this is the type of statute that the tashi go to the runner here if there's a question about whether or not these these folks are doing administration that word should be read again under its plain meaning as plainly as possible  to up to protect the public then i've got a few minutes left i'll talk about the other two issues that were raised in the briefing one is whether or not the school district is a person again that that's briefed and outlined in our in our brief a section sixty sixty one o three it really is meaningless if organizations like the school board is is not considered a port a person it's the general definition a person that's used throughout pretty enough for the individual who develops the need to return information for that person to the person is that enough well i think that person is a person but i think corporations are also persons as is famously decided in many many decisions by this court and by the the supreme court and a municipal corporation is a corporation and again there's a municipal sources and there's a there's a whole list of factors that need to be considered and again i think that shows that it's a at best a fact question whether or not those those factors or  the eleventh amendment argument that's that's been that seems to be your primary concern is that you label this effect question and like judge moore i'm saying this is know you if it's a question of law we can decide it in the district court was right to decide it without the argument that you we need a trial right what what's the question of fact i said you two agree that there was some eligibility work on the part of the school board what more well i think if you were going to make it a fact question then you wouldn't want to make it a fact question we're trying to determine that why you think it is a pack question well i think you have other than statutory interpretation i think you have to decide whether or not the if you're going to say that that as a matter of law nobody manages anything nobody's responsible for anything based on the record of what everybody agreed here well i mean based on the pleadings based on the pleadings and and based on self serving declarations that that indicate that there's some administration going on so if you can rely on if you're going to rely on what the school board says then i think we're entitled to figure out what the school board says is really what's going on here but i agree with your honor in the sense that that you can look at this  snapback benefit and that connection i think you're limiting it to this eligibility determining eligibility correct ok right which is but again in order to say that you have to you have to  get into the facts in order to say that they did that they determine the eligibility you have to look into what the facts of the of the case are because that's not apparent yes it is it's the it's the framework of the varying statute this statute said eligibility you're automatically eligible right right but i'm saying to understand it to understand what the administration is yet you have to be able to go to the facts in the words and understand exactly what the the district is doing that's the only that's the only fact the only one the only reason that fact is before the court is because they put it in a in a an affidavit pursuant to a twelve b six motion well if it's if we're deciding it under twelve b six thousand we don't look at any factual material right we just look at the pleading that's right and the pleading the we say in the pleading they administer they'd minister the the  the snapback because of this because of this connection the court converted this to a summary judgment did it not initially it was told me six i thought ultimately it was summary the conclusion of the court's order says based on the foregoing claims complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and those grants defendants motion plaintiffs claim is dismissed with prejudice so that sounds to me like it may please the court my name is steve shields i represent the happily and with me as co counsel deborah own but i will be the only one arguing the case your honour's district court legal conclusion is exactly right the tipping county school board does not minister the snapback how did we get here the plenty filed suit alleging a violation of the arias code sixty one  three and its damage part of that seventy four thirty one to prevail they had to allege the tipping county board of education was a person was who knowingly or negligently disclose personal information by lation of sixty one or three and that the defendant administered one of the social programmes expressed glee listed in sixty one  seventy when you look at that list that list contains one social program the food and nutrition act notably absent is the school  act which was an acted well before even the stamp act so what occurs unless the school board administers the food or nutrition act the snap ac then the plenty of has no claim or you know the argument council the argument is there that the definition of administer includes provide support or somehow support it and and that's the argument that it is an administration in is much as you determine eligibility and that's helpful and equals administration well i would argue  says any child who receive snap benefits you automatically be in road in the national school lunch program in tipton county what was tipping county do and the judge said that mr glass affidavit simply reflected what the statute says so if it 's a twelve b six we can't look at an affidavit right that's right and i think looking at her opinion she did say she's deciding it's a twelve b sex that's right for her opinion it's purely legal question did  then the way she presents the question given defendants administration of the n s l p a national school lunch program and connection between that program and snap does it also administer snap so that seems to be the legal question is that's why we're looking at all the statu involving the school lunch program and involving snap is there administration or not so why isn't paragraph thirty one enough to constitute at least survival under twelve p six for the  plaintiffs it is a stretch to say that that's administration that in fact there are many general running the snap program and when you take a look at the two different programs the judge did a wonderful job of going through and pointing out that one the statute themselves talk about administration by the secretary by the state agency what is on that silo under the stap act is dead under that silo it's the department of human services alone with her county offices  n area manager that's who does that she reiterated dinge she a numerated the various requirements that they have to go through making rules and regulations etc i'm not going to get into all of those details that's quite lengthy on the other side is the lunch program the school lunch program that's administered by the department of education the board of education with the department of education and the commissioner of education and what happens is just let's get down to judge cook's question what happens is that the department of education is in a list the list goes to the school board they look at the list and automatically that snap nappanee get the number they in fact get a school lunch that's the extent of the administration that's the extent of the help then it was the school lunch program had various factors that w talk about what the benefit is under snap snap is devolving things it's to give the household money to purchase food at a retail store for consumption in the home it's very clear school board doesn't do that don't do any of that they time to give money for the purchase of food they don't give they don't buy it from a retail store and it's not for home consumption does administer in that vein who is there an entity that look ensures that families are getting their check ensures that they're using it for purchase of groceries it's that that depth of intimate at ministration is done where ordinary human services and it's not in your county or it's just the federal you have one in the county it one the county we have city address in there you're not going to go to the school board and ask about snap we're going to go to the county and are going to talk to them so there's two sides and this nat been a fit and then let's go to one of the arguments in terms that this is a snap benefit this is a school lunch benefit this is a school lunch benefit the a public in their briefs is that well the school board is the functional has functional responsibility for the snapback well guess what that section saves functional responsibility connection with the issuance of benefits in households in households for consumption of food in the home school system doesn't do that then the appellant makes an argument in their brief about what's a benefit and when you read the term benefit says means a value of supplemental nutrition assistance that's home she provided to a household here we go by household again by means of an electronic benefit say or other means of providing assistance market and and i skipped a little language here which i'll get to but that the school lunch program could be other means of providing assistance but the language that i skipped is as determined by the secretary and that and that history with you you're wrong but i was actually going to be helpful to you don't disagree with very well yes thank you i care appreciate that but as determined by the secretary i think it was one of your points in the brief that you know that there is that we don't have a secretary the secretary is supposed to be the secretary of agriculture and the secretary of agriculture is not involved right now it is for households and let me do point out an additional meaning to that sentance if you look at it by means of electronic benefit transfer under section two of this title or other means of providing assistance in other words who knows where we're going to be at in twenty years we may have all our phones we may have some other electronic device i think what they're talking shit about in that section is how can we assist them in actually going the and by the electronic means or other walkers and so as a result they and if you take a look at this this is not a benefit of snap this is a you to one of the questions that the district judge didn't decide was whether this was covered by the sixty one of three and and whether this was a return or return information and my understanding of what was disclosed were the w two is in my right so why aren't w to return or return information i think those are part of that but the who decided that my circuit decided ok so that's not binding on us that is not binding on you but it does the most comprehensive analysis of the legislative history and it is it berry similar from the standpoint that it was disclosed but it was not through the iris and if you take a look at the word return it's a is which is filed with the secretary or received by recorded by prepared by f collected by the secretary it didn't pass through the iris well that the w two is weren't the debbie to use sent to the iris or used in the process of they taking tax returns if they would answer to that question i know stoics is that what this is about is to protect us from the iris sharing this information to make sure that the i r s does not disclose this information with the white house and with others but the way this statute is written no officer or employee of any local agency administering a program listed such a snap who has or had access to return subdisciplines any return obtained by him so that seems to be applying to the people who are working in the snap program that the stove which case seems to suggest that it has to pass through it has to be through the iris and i realize this closure has which this was deliberate so it can it turns out a technical point of having information was delivered it does does and so in my in my remaining time  let me go to the other issue that was raised and that is that if the court decides that it should go and affirm the district court i don't see any reason to decide the other two issues if in fact you decide we disagree with that and want to send it back i don't see any reason to decide the other issues but this is the only chance i get to be before you so i will respond to the other question i responded to the return to let me respond to the to the person question is that under the definition of person it means to show be construed to mean an include an individual a trust the state partnership association company or corporation the case well we cite says that before congress wants to intrude upon the state and it subdivisions it should be express for example we quoted to you title since title s hundred sixty four civil rights act says person is defined as including one or more individual governments governmental agencies or political subdivisions and the other thing the appellate argues is that while the word include means that there could be others take a look at the section to section says when using his title insert the person shall be construed to mean that they taken out the words to mean it says to mean and showing and i think when you do that that you have then a provision that basically says you can't sue the state or political subdivision said what you it is this a subdivision of the state the county board of education or is it more akin to a municipal corporation i suppose if we're going to talk about kinship that it's a statutorily created it let's start there is a statutory creative energy and i know that there are some cases that discusses that as a municipal corporation the fact is is that it doesn't say municipal corporation here either it does not say that no it says corporation which is corporation so let me go to something that but you know it as a matter  of your experience in representing the board of education i would imagine for different purposes it's considered a subdivision of the state and for other purposes it's considered more like a city and almost out of town let me make one last point because it was raised about how well these folks are left without a remedy and that's where thing stoics points out this penalty is very severe for example they this political subdivisions that's allowed under state law so the fact is is that i don't want to support to think that the plaintiffs here would be without a remedy of some sort if if there were even damages thank you extensively exclusively totally or any other adjective that limits the administration to a a large bit of administration and if you look at the definition of administration that the district court  school board and we all agree on help or support is part of that and it supports the mission of snap it a it's a benefit provided by snap but it's also supports the the mission because it frees up resources money for household consumption or your argument seems to be that there the school board tangentially cooperates with the entity that actually administers and that is the county for the federal the arm of the federal agency that is the more direct administrator there are other into these that also administer this program and again if you want to put an adjective in front of it and say that they primarily in minister add that may or may not be true but the the statute does not require you could say the primary administrator of the program it just says is it ministers the program in that would include that we'd have to think there's several administrators of this program that would be the argument that would say that will board ministers and agency administers walking yes cooperate in administering the last thing i'll say about that is that the the school board brought up the idea of household children are members of households thank you thank you both