[brief] THE COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY ENJOINING APPELLANTS FROM AMENDING, MODIFYING, OR SUPERSEDING ANY PORTION OF POLICY 5756, UNTIL DISPOSITION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT BEFORE THE DIVISION ON CIVIL RIGHTS  The Court’s August 18, 2023 decision imposed two restrictions on Board Defendants: (1) restraining implementation of Policy 5756 adopted on June 20, 2023; and (2) restraining Board Defendants from “amending, modifying, or superseding any portion of [pre-existing] Policy 5756. ”  There is no legal or factual basis for this relief.  None was offered and none was cited by the Court.  This self-serving action allows the State to prosecute claims, which may otherwise be moot if the policies were repealed.  N.J.S.A. 18A:11-1(c) specifically provides that a Board may “[m]ake, amend and repeal rules . . . for the government and management of the public schools and public school property of the district and for the employment, regulation of conduct and discharge of its employees.  . . . ”  Indeed, a board's direct responsibilities are to make policies, develop plans, and evaluate outcomes.  Incredibly, the State admitted that Policy 5756 is not mandatory and parental notification is legal.  On September 6, 2023, in a separate matter concerning the same issue, Platkin and Iyer v. [...] and [...], Docket Number [...], Deputy Attorney General [...] admitted to the Court:  THE COURT:  True, but as I think you argued the first time, there are many districts around the State that don’t have any policy whatsoever with regard to the issue to maybe the statewide guidance, but there is not necessarily specific policy on the issue; is that correct?  MR. MICHAEL:  I am not sure about many.  **I know it is not necessarily a mandatory policy. **  It’s mandatory guidance that the DOE was required to put – the Legislature directed DOE to put out the guidance, and in this particular area, basically directed in large part what the guidance should say.  So it is sort of an insight into – THE COURT: Guidance, yes, but – MR. MICHAEL: -- how the Legislature views the issue.  THE COURT: Right, but guidance yes; policy no.  MR. MICHAEL: Right.  **But it is correct this is not a policy that every district is mandated to have.**  See Da269 (Lines 2-22) (emphasis added).  See N.J.R.E. 803(b)(3)(admissibility of statement by person authorized to speak on behalf of party-opponent).  In a similar stunning admission from a party opponent, Attorney General [...] admitted that parental notification is legal.  See Da281.  On August 29, 2023, Respondent General Platkin appeared on The [...] Show on WNYC radio, and stated, “of course, you can tell parents about issues going on with their student, including changes in gender identity and expression. ”  See Da281.  Such statements of a party-opponent are admissible evidence.  See N.J.R.E. 803(b)(1).  Nonetheless, the State continues to prosecute this case.  Moreover, unlike every other school district in this State, as a result of the Court’s August 18, 2023 Order, the Board Defendants are compelled to maintain a policy subjecting them to this baseless litigation.  As such, the Court must vacate that portion of the Chancery Division’s decision.