actually want to kota was trying to find out what she actually wanted it looks like she were to everything else for your honor i know there's an issue with respect to the judge state's equitable relief and damage just over the department failure to implement the entirety of the of the impartial hearing officers order and a car to a relief stating that the partner violated her rights  ultimately did however you or your honor the issue in this case as if you give me a moment if you apologized the issue in this case is that at the time the complaint was filed the department had not compl case the court held in an eight to one opinion that and let me let me go right to the holding so i don't get it wrong because every violation of a civil right or of an important right i'm sorry because every from year to year this case is not about a unilateral place in this case is about one of pendency order issues the district obligation for funding and for placement is a media in this case the district chose not to pay not to abide by the i a e a shows the order it was issued the th of october the s r o held that at least payment from october forward and with respect to the to the pendency order but the problem is this student will from year to year be entitled to pendency the district court basic didn't resolve the issue of whether the school in march to the pandemic although it claimed it had a reason for doing so just pressed and said no absolutely cannot stop paying with respect to an order because you think the order isn't isn't a flexible the problem forward is miss reality next year gets another pegasi daughter if the school district feels for some reason that that order might not withstand appeal and chooses not to pay the pendency with respect to the o payment action or whatever and and therefore i declare a declaration is needed in order for the parties to understand what their dispute obligations are i don't think  you have any basis for saying that the school district is his planning to to to to stop payment in the future nor can you say that circumstances will not change in  behavior and the behavior is where there's a stay quit provision protecting a child's right to announce a what if if if if it's capable of repetition why would it even bigger if you well it the way it may in this case and that's to the extent that the district chooses not to pay it and then alleges it's not it's a voluntary cessation the they don't take tennessee is a very short period of time of if if if the circumstances of the sentence and the school anyone can expect the school board to refuse payment unless the circumstances change and if your client ages out or is no longer subject to the the the disability that that gave rise to this claim  circumstances change that may be but i don't know what the present dispute is that needs a declaration to resolve but you know that's the very point that the department of education takes it upon itself to decide when circumstances change it very well could have sought to stay before the district court could have could have brought an action itself to stay the opinion if i thought it was wrong in this case the s r o upheld the decision as i said you have to pay pendency but this was four months later that the purpose of ten again your honor based on the suppression supreme court decision the fact that a right was violated that's tendency payments were not made when the i h o required them to be made the blank suffered an injury which could be redress nominal damages and an injury be redressed by nominal damages in addition to the real damages so if the if the if the  tuition was eighteen thousand dollars can the parents insist on eighteen thousand and two dollars on a theory that not all damages in addition to the real damages because it looks like it looks like lemon damages is what you get when you don't have any other kind of damages i would say to your eyes question yes because there are two separate injuries here there was not paying the pendency which has been paid and the violation recent case it was a case that challenged two college students right to speak on a college campus by the time the supreme court heard the case as judge roberts indicates the two students were no longer students at the college the challenge restrictions no longer exist at least nominal damages and again i understand that that here we are saying the cost of the tuition is the damage but it's more fundamental than that when one dollar of the plaintiffs or child gets an order requiring pendency the final they're not a big if i can an unknown running out of time when council says this issue isn't likely to be addressed the issue isn't in the unilateral placement what we have happening now is the deal he takes so long to resolve these matters not the thirty days forward it's not paid based on fantasy and f l if he comes down required to pay the tuition and is paid and a court never rules like the district court and whether or not the that the school district can simply not