[brief] Docket No. [...]  Dear [...]:  This firm represents the [...] (“Board”) in the above-referenced matter.  Please accept this letter-brief in reply to the opposition brief filed by Plaintiff-Respondents [...], Attorney General of New Jersey (“Attorney General”), and [...], Director of the [...] (“Director”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), pursuant to R. 2:6-5.  TABLE OF CONTENTS  Preliminary Statement ...........................................................................................................  2  ORDER BEING APPEALED  Order dated August 18, 2023 signed by [...], JSC ........................................................................................................ Da095  Preliminary Statement  Plaintiffs treat their opposition brief as though it is a merits brief by raising nearly every issue addressed by the Board before the trial court on the preliminary injunction, rather than focusing on the key issues on appeal, i.e., whether the trial court misapplied the legal standards for granting preliminary injunctive relief.  In addition, Plaintiffs have misrepresented the actual language of the policy which the Board seeks to effectuate.  For example, the Board’s proposed policy states that “the district will notify a student’s parent/guardian of the student’s change in gender identity or expression except where there is reason to believe that doing so would pose a danger to the health or safety of the pupil [emphasis added]”; not, as Plaintiffs allege, “a blanket policy that require[s] school personnel to affirmatively inform the parents of transgender, gender non-conforming, or non-binary students about the child’s gender identity. ”  Plaintiffs also cite to language purporting to be included in the Board’s proposed policy which is nowhere to be found.  For example, the Board’s proposed policy does not contain language regarding “request[ing] a public social transition accommodation,” or “public name/identity/pronoun change,” as alleged by Plaintiffs.  Presumably, Plaintiffs are carelessly confusing the Board’s policy with policies passed by other New Jersey school boards.  Moreover, Plaintiffs assert, without any basis in fact, that the Board no longer “disputes” or “seriously disputes” certain arguments raised below.  Indeed, the Board maintains all of the legal arguments that it made before the trial court, which it reserves the right to raise in the pending related DCR matter intended to address the merits of Plaintiffs’ allegations.  While the Board disagrees with several of the conclusions reached by the trial court in granting Plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction, the instant appeal focuses on those portions of the lower court’s decision which were explicitly made without a rational explanation, inexplicably departed from established policies, or rested on an impermissible basis.  Specifically, the trial court incorrectly applied the law regarding “a well-settled right” for Plaintiffs to proceed on their claims, improperly relied on inadmissible evidence, and ordered the Board to violate state and federal law.  Importantly, it is Plaintiffs’ burden to satisfy each Crowe prong by clear and convincing evidence, which it was unable to do, as detailed infra and in the Board’s initial brief.  Therefore, the trial court’s Order respectfully must be reversed.  **Procedural History and Statement of Facts**