PLAINTIFFS’ TRIAL BRIEF - Legal argument for injunction

Sep 1, 2026

Upload by Mason

Plaintiffs’ Trial Brief submitted in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas argues that sovereign immunity does not bar claims under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the ADA. It contends that Ex parte Young applies because Defendants enforce Executive Order GA-38 prohibiting mask requirements in 2021–2022. Plaintiffs claim standing due to loss of meaningful access to in-person education, ADA and Rehabilitation Act violations, and ADA/Section 504 preemption, with GA-38 and TEA guidance also preempted by the American Rescue Plan Act.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryLetters

FormatDOCX

Pages74

Reading Time26 min

AccessFree to download

I. INTRODUCTION

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

A. Executive Order GA-38 prohibits mask requirements

B. Plaintiffs’ medical disabilities and increased COVID-19 risk

C. Deprivation of meaningful access to public schools

D. Extensive enforcement of GA-38

III. ARGUMENT & AUTHORITIES

A. Subject matter jurisdiction (Section 504, ADA, Ex parte Young)

B. Violations of the ADA and Rehabilitation Act

C. Preemption by the ADA and Section 504

D. Preemption by the American Rescue Plan Act

E. Necessity of an injunction and public interest

IV. CONCLUSION

United States District Court FOR THE Western District of TeXAS Austin DivisIon PLAINTIFFS’ TRIAL BRIEF TABLE OF CONTENTS TOC \f C \t "Heading 1,1, pleadingtls_1,1, Heading 2,2, pleadingtls_2,2, Heading 3,3, pleadingtls_3,3, Heading 4,4, pleadingtls_4,4, Heading 5,5, pleadingtls_5,5, Heading 6,6, pleadingtls_6,6" PLAINTIFFS’ TRIAL BRIEF PAGEREF _Toc83846165 \h 1 I. INTRODUCTION PAGEREF _Toc83846166 \h 1 II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND PAGEREF _Toc83846167 \h 4 A. The Governor issues Executive Order GA-38 on July 29, 2021, prohibiting public schools from implementing mask requirements for the 2021-2022 school year. PAGEREF _Toc83846168 \h 4 B. Plaintiffs are students with medical disabilities that place them at higher risk for contracting COVID-19 and/or experiencing severe illness due to the virus. PAGEREF _Toc83846169 \h 7 C. Defendants’ Enforcement of Executive Order GA-38 has deprived Plaintiffs of meaningful access to their public schools. PAGEREF _Toc83846170 \h 8 D. Defendants are engaged in extensive and active enforcement of GA-38, including litigation, despite claims they are not authorized to enforce it. PAGEREF _Toc83846171 \h 13 III. ARGUMENT & AUTHORITIES PAGEREF _Toc83846172 \h 22 A. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction. PAGEREF _Toc83846173 \h 22 1. For Plaintiffs’ two statutory claims—Section 504 and the ADA—sovereign immunity is not available as a defense. PAGEREF _Toc83846174 \h 23 2. Ex parte Young overcomes any sovereign immunity defense in this case because Defendants are actively enforcing GA-38. PAGEREF _Toc83846175 \h 25 a. On its face, Ex parte Young deprives a state official of sovereign immunity when he is enforcing a law that violates federal law. PAGEREF _Toc83846176 \h 25 b. Fifth Circuit cases do not and cannot require a different result. PAGEREF _Toc83846177 \h 30 3. Plaintiffs have standing because Defendants’ unlawful conduct has deprived Plaintiffs of meaningful access to in-person public education. PAGEREF _Toc83846178 \h 33 a. Plaintiffs have suffered an injury because they have been deprived of meaningful access to in-person public education. PAGEREF _Toc83846179 \h 33 i. Plaintiffs’ actual or imminent loss of opportunity to attend and have meaningful access to in-person public school is an injury sufficient to confer standing. PAGEREF _Toc83846180 \h 34 ii. Plaintiffs have been deprived of the opportunity to attend and have meaningful access to in-person public school. PAGEREF _Toc83846181 \h 37 b. Plaintiffs’ injury is fairly traceable to Defendants’ actual and threatened enforcement of GA-38 against school districts. PAGEREF _Toc83846182 \h 40 c. An injunction enjoining Defendants from enforcing GA-38 against school districts would likely redress Plaintiffs’ injury. PAGEREF _Toc83846183 \h 43 B. Defendants have violated the ADA and Rehabilitation Act. PAGEREF _Toc83846184 \h 44 1. Plaintiffs are qualified individuals with disabilities. PAGEREF _Toc83846185 \h 46 2. G.A. 38 discriminates against Plaintiffs. PAGEREF _Toc83846186 \h 46 a. Exclusion from in-person learning PAGEREF _Toc83846187 \h 47 b. Unequal access to in-person learning PAGEREF _Toc83846188 \h 49 c. Failure to Provide Reasonable Modification PAGEREF _Toc83846189 \h 52 3. The discrimination is by reason of the Plaintiffs’ disability. PAGEREF _Toc83846190 \h 54 C. GA 38 is preempted by the ADA and Section 504. PAGEREF _Toc83846191 \h 55 D. GA-38 and the TEA’s Public Health Guidance are preempted by the American Rescue Plan Act. PAGEREF _Toc83846192 \h 56 1. The Rescue Act expressly gives local school districts discretion to adopt policies, including universal masking, to achieve a safe return to in-person instruction. PAGEREF _Toc83846193 \h 57 2. By barring local school districts from adopting mask requirements, GA-38 and TEA’s Guidance are in direct conflict with the Act. PAGEREF _Toc83846194 \h 59 3. The

FAQs

Why do Plaintiffs argue sovereign immunity does not bar their claims?

The brief argues sovereign immunity is unavailable as a defense for Plaintiffs’ two statutory claims under Section 504 and the ADA.

How does Ex parte Young factor into the case?

Plaintiffs contend Ex parte Young overcomes any sovereign-immunity defense because Defendants actively enforce GA-38 in a way that violates federal law.

What remedies do Plaintiffs seek and why?

Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief to prevent further harm and argue it is in the public interest to enjoin enforcement of GA-38 against school districts.

Sep 1, 2026

Upload by Mason