Opinion ID: 3215394
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Prospective Chapel Claim

Text: In contrast to the prospective prayer claim, the district court did not address the merits of the prospective chapel claim. The school district asserted at the summary judgment stage that this claim was moot, because the Doe children had enrolled in other schools in Greenville County, and none would be attending MVES. AHA did not attempt at that time to establish standing based on its representation of other member parents. The district court concluded that the plaintiffs failed to establish a potential injury from application of the revised chapel policy. The court found that (1) the Doe children no longer were enrolled in or would attend MVES in the future, and had moved to schools in the district that had not used Turner Chapel or other religious facilities for school events; and (2) the plaintiffs failed to present evidence that the new schools attended by the Doe children were likely to use such religious facilities in the future. The record before us supports the 16 district court’s factual findings and conclusion that the Does failed to establish a likelihood of injury from future application of the revised chapel policy. Thus, because at the time of the district court’s judgment, AHA had not shown that the Does or any other AHA members were likely to suffer injury from application of the revised chapel policy, AHA failed to establish standing in the district court to challenge that policy. 7 And, under Summers, AHA is barred from remedying this defect on appeal. See 555 U.S. at 495 n.. Accordingly, we grant the school district’s motion to dismiss AHA’s prospective chapel claim. 8