Opinion ID: 200436
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: First Amendment and Remaining Claims

Text: 32 The Towers claim perfunctorily that their First Amendment rights were violated by Leslie-Brown when she refused to permit the Towers to attend the same religious services, and to refrain from all contact with each other. It is not enough merely to mention a possible argument in the most skeletal way, leaving the court to do counsel's work, create the ossature for the argument, and put flesh on its bones. United States v. Zannino, 895 F.2d 1, 17 (1st Cir.1990). The mere allusion to the infringement of the right to worship or the right to free association is insufficient to put the matter in issue. 33 Similarly, the plaintiffs state in their reply brief that there remain issues as to substantive and procedural due process, equal protection, and Title IV-E of the Social Security Act that are not argued in their briefs, but which were not intended to be abandoned on appeal. Despite these protestations, we have made it abundantly clear that failure to brief an argument does, in fact, constitute waiver for purposes of appeal. See Ortiz v. Gaston County Dyeing Mach. Co., 277 F.3d 594, 598 (1st Cir.2002); Gosselin v. Massachusetts, 276 F.3d 70, 72 (1st Cir.2002); Garcia-Ayala v. Lederle Parenterals, Inc., 212 F.3d 638, 645 (1st Cir.2000); Piazza v. Aponte Roque, 909 F.2d 35, 37 (1st Cir. 1990). Any remaining unbriefed arguments are abandoned.