Opinion ID: 3031949
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Plaintiffs’ As-Applied Challenge

Text: As an initial matter, the district court correctly concluded that ACSI lacks associational standing to assert as-applied claims on behalf of its member schools that are not parties to this lawsuit.1 ACSI cannot satisfy the third prong of the Supreme Court’s associational standing test, which mandates that “neither the claim asserted nor the relief requested requires the participation of individual members in the lawsuit.” Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Comm’n, 432 U.S. 333, 343 (1977). The plaintiffs’ as-applied claims and the relief they seek, although equitable in nature, both require “individualized proof” specific to 1 The plaintiffs do not contend that ASCI has associational standing to assert claims on behalf of non-ASCI member schools which had courses rejected by UC, including the Catholic and Jewish school courses the plaintiffs and amici repeatedly discuss in their briefs. -6- each rejected course and the school that offered it. Hunt, 432 U.S. at 343; Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 515-16 (1975).2 Because ACSI lacks associational standing to bring as-applied claims on behalf of non-party member schools, the plaintiffs’ as-applied challenge is limited to the four Calvary courses that were denied UC approval. The district court correctly determined that UC’s rejections of the Calvary courses were reasonable and did not constitute viewpoint discrimination. The plaintiffs offer no facts or evidence to disturb this conclusion. UC’s rejection letters and internal meeting notes demonstrate that UC denied approval not because the courses added a religious viewpoint, but because they were either not college preparatory, lacked necessary course information or materials, or had other procedural defects which Calvary never bothered to cure. Alternatively, the plaintiffs contend that issues of fact exist with respect to their as-applied challenge which preclude summary judgment. The plaintiffs, however, have forfeited this argument. Instead of identifying the factual issues and asserting arguments as to why they were material, the plaintiffs merely provide a 2 Because we conclude that ACSI lacks associational standing, we need not address the district court’s additional decision that the plaintiffs waived as-applied challenges for non-Calvary courses that were not timely disclosed. The plaintiffs lack standing to assert as-applied claims based on non-Calvary courses regardless of whether they were timely disclosed. -7- table of citations to various declarations, affidavits, exhibits and depositions relating to each rejected course, leaving this court to “piece together” their argument. Independent Towers of Washington v. Washington, 350 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding that the plaintiff forfeited its preemption claims on appeal where it provided a “five page laundry list of the challenged regulations and their titles, leaving the court to piece together the argument for preemption as to each regulation”). The district court properly rejected the plaintiffs’ as-applied challenge.