shaaban her child no one continue to reside within the new kensington arnold school district based upon their past and expected future contact with the ten commandments monument at issue in this case they sought prospective relief in the form of an injunction and retrospective relief in the form of nominal damages the facts supporting the claim for prospective relief and the standing for that claim are not in dispute once the one completed seventh and eighth grade in the new kinds of charles school district she would move on to the high school in the district where she's just like the plaintiff and levy weissman right i guess from you that's that young lady was still what three think those facts are really in dispute so i don't think they are either but i sure so i can speak to that and i feel fairly confident that i don't think there will be any disagreement on this the monument sits maybe ten feet or so from dual foot paths that  cross on either side and those foot past lead to a gymnasium entrance to the building so this is this is an entrance that while it is not the what i guess the district considers the main entrance to the building it is the entrance that students use whenever they exit the school bus in the morning to enter the building so in particular it with respect to some of the past contact that the pointis in this case had with the monument they were attending sort of a community event a karate event for for no one at some point prior to this litigation well i agree that there is no dispute as i understand it between the parties is to location there may be some extent that there are other lighting fixtures around this the morning it might be visible and dark but i don't think that that's really a concern because all of the contact that the plaintiffs had prior to this litigation occurred during the day and certainly some of the contact that would have occurred even if we assume that part of the school year it's dark when students arrive at school part of the school year it's plenty light out that what's your best case  standing for one so i want to make sure to go back to my initial point and keep separated the claim for perspective relief in the claim for retrospective relief because each has to be analyzed separately  so with respect to the claim for perspective relief our position is that bill one in addition to being very similar to deborah weissman and leave her says weissman is also very similar to the plaintiffs the chen and in that she faced when she arrived at high school in two years time certain contact with this monument on a daily basis unless she assumed special burdens to avoid that monument and so the mere fact that that was just a mother have standing to bring that claim on her behalf right now is not your argument it certainly is your so if the mother succeeds in getting my name and taken down as unconstitutional why wouldn't we just focus on hers or the one well i think that the i mean as a parent certainly she she is interested in the religious or non religious upbringing of her child and so she would have that claim but no one did testify that as of the time of her deposition she found the monument to nudge her if not definitively compel her to align her views with that of displayed by the more you know because that was in my understanding of the record sure seem quite indifferent to her exclusion of the money at least her earlier exposure oh yeah and let's let's remember that that earlier exposure she was i think seven years old so to the extent that she could even have an objection all the more reason may be why she doesn't have testimony was that she felt that the district kind of wanted her to be that way and so that she was referring to the message conveyed by the by the monument now to judge hardness point that testimony when that feeling existed is important in this case and the record is admittedly unclear on whether that was a view that she held prior to the time the case was filed but certainly as of today she holds that view but the only  relief is not moved and part of that argument is that dole one continues to object to the monument let's focus on standing if we could show and if i understood your answers to my colleagues was the parent has standing and could speak for the prospect of injunctive relief are you believe there's cases case law that says we don't need to consider for injunctive relief whether anybody else's did you agree with that i think that would be fair but i just want to the reason i want to emphasize the ones potential standing is just to underscore the point that she does object to this morning and it's not just a parent speaking on behalf of her child we need to look at what she what manifestations of that occurred at the time of filing did i to the extent that though once testimony is unclear as to whether she knew when she found the money men objectionable i think certainly her or her mother has the ability to sort of there's almost clear about when i saw it i didn't really feel anything and she she's referring and at that time too to her past contact with it and that's why i tried to draw the distinction between her later testimony which i admitted was not it was not framed and any time frame and your responses to be that if we determine that the mother has standing we need not even address the standing of the one i think that would be fair with respect to both players and what is it with respect meaning damages and injunctive relief correctly what is what is the basis for us to not have to address to one individually is it because a parent can bring a claim on behalf of the child and child that because children generally aren't able to express themselves efficiently is that your theory well i think that maury shaab has independent standing so i guess i'm with assume for the purpose this discussion on accepting that proposition what is don't want standing phenomenal images is it because because we can't fix in time her yet her present recitation right so we'll assume for the purpose of my question we were still with which a part of it was that was talking about which is she had your feeling and that would be please the court charlesworth on behalf of religious and religious liberty organizations as a maccie in support of plaintiffs i'll keep the short i was planning to focus today on the plaintiffs  t just disability of plaintiffs claim for prospective relief in this case as my brother already indicated the school district forced plaintiffs to choose between exposing doe one to daily unwanted contact with this monument or sending her to a high school in another school district away from her friends and her community in the town and because ms shaab chose to try to minimize the harm to her daughter as she saw fit the district court held her claims moot and that can't be correct as this court noted the removal of exposure to a religious display or the attempt to change behavior to avoid it is a basis for standing in the first place and certainly here also as the score just noted the fact that the record establishes that if injunctive relief is provided by the district court doe one would be able to return to valley high to complete her high school career which i believe there's roughly two years left at this point that's i do not wish to rehash what the support already discussed we think that in terms of standing at the time complaint was filed levy weissman as to chairman indicated is on point and shows that the plaintiffs here plainly had standing and in fact to the extent that the use of an invocation of religious prayer at a graduation ceremony four years of four years out in time is even potentially slightly less certain than the fact the continued existence of a two thousand pound stone monument in front of a school it's arguable that in this case it's even more certain and then just are you suggesting it's easier to change a graduation program than to remove two thousand pounds of them on  maybe i don't think the sport needs to decide and then also just in terms of moving us as a sport already indicated it obviously don't one could return to valley high and i don't believe that's in dispute so with that said please the court good morning my name is anthony sanchez and i represent the new kensington arnold school district i was going to launch into my argument but i'd like to clarify that fact about the location of the monument the monument is one attempts to see this from the road there is land next to the list school district a parking lot which is very wide wider a football field then you get to the main road it is very far away in this case you can avoid it if you want i don't think i honestly don't think driving down that highway you can see much of it but maybe the sun but if you're aware if you're on school grounds you're still saying you can avoid it if one yeah easily and all right well there's  that i have some familiarity with on the allegheny county courthouse that's also easily avoided right and in the pennsylvania supreme court it is ace the case i only have some familiarity with called margaret right you're familiar with moderates in fact mr moderate you could have avoided walking past that plaque it would seem with greater peace then students who actually attend valley high school are able to avoid the monument a question here in as lower court noted in his opinion that these cases the common strand is of people individuals are blige to view our religious object when monument people didn't have to look at that they could have approached public services in texas a different way there was no question of standing there these these cases are all decided on the merits i think there's a little bit of a difference though with those cases in this case those cases were individuals going to a courthouse going to a state building because there was there was a need there's a public service jury going to court and all these cases are like well i'm going to a public school is something the government provides i couldn't put in service i agree but she did not go to that school she did not want to she wants to she's pleaded that she wants to and we're not in a position to second guess that of roman are we i understand that but i think at the time minder standing of standing judge part of it is that one has to have standing at the initiation of the lawsuit at that time i do not believe she had standing because she was not compelled in any way to be by that and she was saying the walk mr sanchez is that she has to enroll as a senior at as a student at valley high school and then once she's a role as a student there then she has standing to bring her case our case is a little different than leave ursus wife and when when you look at the facts of reverses why send that student when in junior high school was subjected to the school's practice of inviting clergy rabbis to speak at graduation and then she was going to experience again at high school we don't have that kind of fact pattern here we have facts of this student and i believe not she said it made her stomach turn or something not as any part of of attending the school not for any reason that she had to be at that school she was at school for quality event that was not sponsored by this is that that's an important point you make i think there's a disagreement between both sides you say almost it has to be compelled interaction with the monument and i did the other side says that's not the law right now i believe so when you look at that how was i was mr moderate compelled to go to the the monument over at the allegheny county courthouse and hundreds no aspect of compulsion there just pleading was you know i walked by there on the way to work ok bus stop there that i might use from time to time i only had standing there i'm not familiar enough with that case on asli to talk about whether just cited in the brief right i apologize but i don't believe my memory not that good it was a long time i remember the case happening in our honor that i do recall but i still say in these cases where we look at religious monuments there are ten commandments in classrooms that students are seeing their prayers in classrooms that students you see there a monument sit court houses likely an award and things like that where people have to go to those buildings the average citizen has to go to the end of it state law requires people with ten schools exactly it's even it's even more compulsory than the episodic trip to the you know county courthouse where you were voted for you were great it's one hundred eighty days a year right right but she does not attend that school mean because he who her mother's this is intros that she shouldn't because she didn't want to expose or she didn't she did take on that burden no i think that enough to get standing not when she initiated the lawsuit when the lawsuit was initiated she had no reason in any reason she was the daughter of a person i'm sorry the mom intended at the time she filed suit according to the pleading to send the daughter to that school why isn't that sufficient for her think that that the lower court notes this fairly while that the contact is frequent regular and not spry here is the frequency requirement come from i notice that too when the supreme court says for standing purposes you need an identifiable trifle that doesn't sound like a requirement frequency standing purposes so where does that come from it comes from the analysis of these cases in these cases with regard like i said with the commandments in a and a high school building that student house to go in that building every day has a right to public education he goes into that room every day all these cases are like that these individuals can we return to what you consider the standard to be purposes of on certain like they're asked to be unwelcome conduct or contact obviously of ok i think everybody right now everyone agrees with that but i believe that there has to be that it can't be sporadic it can't be it where did the district court get the stand that it applied the sporadic the court look to a district court case that interpreted these cases the court if i recall the cases felix first the city of bloomfield and in that court case the court interpreted these cases through that ad and i believe the court is right i think when you look at all these cases and you look at the facts they're all similar in the sense that it's a it's a it is a monument that is viewed when a person has a building that they have to be out for whatever reason and that monument is in plain sight been exposed that had to be that was student that was at a middle school graduation and that in fact had occurred so i think it was reasonable then for the court to say yes this is this is expected this is going to happen so you point of view then if we follow your logic this is a shot should have enrolled her daughter at school to confront the monument that the family believes is inconsistent with their beliefs for some period of time that she would have to expose yourself to the offensive conduct right to be able to to have standing i don't believe that so i just believe that when she brought this lawsuit there was no standing because there was no imminent harm that didn't exist what is the what is the logical result however other then to at least at some we were subsequently exposure so to the very offensive  to i believe so in the school district would have a decision to make i don't believe any additionally details in this court has questions all right thank you thank you and very briefly on the prospective relief claim and then i want to move on to the retrospective really quite briefly as i hear the district's argument there's really no ability of a point if to seek to avoid harm before has actually happened the imminence requirement in the standard for seeking prospective relief and a question of whether plaintiff has an ip address is that very concerned there would be no concept of imminence and avoidance of future injury if that was not permissible the district also says that under the district's view of the law the contact with the monument must be compelled in some way it's important to know that the claim for perspective really envisions a scenario where no one would be compelled to come into contact with that monument yes she hadn't been compelled to come into contact with it prior to the case being filed but she certainly would have been compelled to come into contact with it when she became a student so the perspective relief claim meets the very standard that the district argues exists but that's the end it is too high and the district court in reaching this sort of frequency conclusion or regularity conclusion relied upon a district court case in new mexico and sort of cherry picked limited language from i think it was the vasquez case that noted in that case the contact was regular and frequent not not sell them in remote or something something like that might talk about this frequency requirement if there were no frequency requirement lawsuit if there's no frequency requirement well i think there are other considerations other than frequency that would address that concern and that's sort of touches on a point the point that i wanted to make with respect to the retrospective relief plan and really the task facing the court on that drawing and we have the valley force case which gives a clear indication of what standing is not you have out of state plaintiffs have never been to the community no risk of future contact talking about a land transfer in pennsylvania residing in maryland and virginia and then you have these cases around the country addressing valley forge and trying to say what is the standard for what standing actually is and that's the direct and walk in context end of this when so often used by the court so i would initially suggest that the clearest place to draw a line a bright line that can be repeated for future places would be some contact versus no contact at all but that could open the door to judge  line that give the court or good future place of some objective guidance on whether they have standing in these cases for example are the plaintiffs members of the community that's a that's a very simple objective checkbox in these plaintiffs check that box is there a risk of future contact with the monument again very sim full question to be asked certainly involves facts but here is the point of checks that that box is well so i guess just to wrap up i would say that we think it's very clear that with respect to the claim for perspective relief there was future compelled contact much likely versus weissman and that absolutely the plaintiffs have at least played a shop has standing to bring that claim and that claim is not moot because there's ongoing injury with respect to the retrospective relief and the normal damages at least with respect to i think it's important that the this court correct the misapprehension of the standard that the district court used to find that the pla