[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-detail-168069-en":3,"doc-seo-168069-105":30,"detail-sidebar-cat-1-en-105":92},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",{"doc_id":7,"user_id":8,"nickname":9,"user_avatar":10,"doc_module":11,"category_id":12,"category_name":13,"doc_title":14,"doc_description":15,"doc_content":16,"file_id":17,"file_url":18,"file_type":19,"file_size":20,"view_count":11,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":11,"is_downloadable":11,"audit_status":11,"page_count":21,"language":22,"language_code":23,"site_id":24,"html_lang":23,"table_of_contents":25,"faqs":26,"seo_title":27,"seo_description":15,"update_tm":28,"read_time":29},168069,5909887256941,"Mason","https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_9964176cb1d06d4a9deccf72a44ae3dc",1,18,"Letters","PLAINTIFFS’ TRIAL BRIEF - Legal argument for injunction","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.","United States District Court\nFOR THE Western District of TeXAS\nAustin DivisIon\nPLAINTIFFS’ TRIAL BRIEF\nTABLE OF CONTENTS\n\u0013 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\" \u0014PLAINTIFFS’ TRIAL BRIEF\t\u0013 PAGEREF _Toc83846165 \\h \u00141\u0015\nI.\tINTRODUCTION\t\u0013 PAGEREF _Toc83846166 \\h \u00141\u0015\nII.\tFACTUAL BACKGROUND\t\u0013 PAGEREF _Toc83846167 \\h \u00144\u0015\nA.\tThe Governor issues Executive Order GA-38 on July 29, 2021, prohibiting public schools from implementing mask requirements for the 2021-2022 school year.\t\u0013 PAGEREF _Toc83846168 \\h \u00144\u0015\nB.\tPlaintiffs are students with medical disabilities that place them at higher risk for contracting COVID-19 and/or experiencing severe illness due to the virus.\t\u0013 PAGEREF _Toc83846169 \\h \u00147\u0015\nC.\tDefendants’ Enforcement of Executive Order GA-38 has deprived Plaintiffs of meaningful access to their public schools.\t\u0013 PAGEREF _Toc83846170 \\h \u00148\u0015\nD.\tDefendants are engaged in extensive and active enforcement of GA-38, including litigation, despite claims they are not authorized to enforce it.\t\u0013 PAGEREF _Toc83846171 \\h \u001413\u0015\nIII.\tARGUMENT & AUTHORITIES\t\u0013 PAGEREF _Toc83846172 \\h \u001422\u0015\nA.\tThe Court has subject matter jurisdiction.\t\u0013 PAGEREF _Toc83846173 \\h \u001422\u0015\n1.\tFor Plaintiffs’ two statutory claims—Section 504 and the ADA—sovereign immunity is not available as a defense.\t\u0013 PAGEREF _Toc83846174 \\h \u001423\u0015\n2.\tEx parte Young overcomes any sovereign immunity defense in this case because Defendants are actively enforcing GA-38.\t\u0013 PAGEREF _Toc83846175 \\h \u001425\u0015\na.\tOn its face, Ex parte Young deprives a state official of sovereign immunity when he is enforcing a law that violates federal law.\t\u0013 PAGEREF _Toc83846176 \\h \u001425\u0015\nb.\tFifth Circuit cases do not and cannot require a different result.\t\u0013 PAGEREF _Toc83846177 \\h \u001430\u0015\n3.\tPlaintiffs have standing because Defendants’ unlawful conduct has deprived Plaintiffs of meaningful access to in-person public education.\t\u0013 PAGEREF _Toc83846178 \\h \u001433\u0015\na.\tPlaintiffs have suffered an injury because they have been deprived of meaningful access to in-person public education.\t\u0013 PAGEREF _Toc83846179 \\h \u001433\u0015\ni.\tPlaintiffs’ actual or imminent loss of opportunity to attend and have meaningful access to in-person public school is an injury sufficient to confer standing.\t\u0013 PAGEREF _Toc83846180 \\h \u001434\u0015\nii.\tPlaintiffs have been deprived of the opportunity to attend and have meaningful access to in-person public school.\t\u0013 PAGEREF _Toc83846181 \\h \u001437\u0015\nb.\tPlaintiffs’ injury is fairly traceable to Defendants’ actual and threatened enforcement of GA-38 against school districts.\t\u0013 PAGEREF _Toc83846182 \\h \u001440\u0015\nc.\tAn injunction enjoining Defendants from enforcing GA-38 against school districts would likely redress Plaintiffs’ injury.\t\u0013 PAGEREF _Toc83846183 \\h \u001443\u0015\nB.\tDefendants have violated the ADA and Rehabilitation Act.\t\u0013 PAGEREF _Toc83846184 \\h \u001444\u0015\n1.\tPlaintiffs are qualified individuals with disabilities.\t\u0013 PAGEREF _Toc83846185 \\h \u001446\u0015\n2.\tG.A. 38 discriminates against Plaintiffs.\t\u0013 PAGEREF _Toc83846186 \\h \u001446\u0015\na.\tExclusion from in-person learning\t\u0013 PAGEREF _Toc83846187 \\h \u001447\u0015\nb.\tUnequal access to in-person learning\t\u0013 PAGEREF _Toc83846188 \\h \u001449\u0015\nc.\tFailure to Provide Reasonable Modification\t\u0013 PAGEREF _Toc83846189 \\h \u001452\u0015\n3.\tThe discrimination is by reason of the Plaintiffs’ disability.\t\u0013 PAGEREF _Toc83846190 \\h \u001454\u0015\nC.\tGA 38 is preempted by the ADA and Section 504.\t\u0013 PAGEREF _Toc83846191 \\h \u001455\u0015\nD.\tGA-38 and the TEA’s Public Health Guidance are preempted by the American Rescue Plan Act.\t\u0013 PAGEREF _Toc83846192 \\h \u001456\u0015\n1.\tThe Rescue Act expressly gives local school districts discretion to adopt policies, including universal masking, to achieve a safe return to in-person instruction.\t\u0013 PAGEREF _Toc83846193 \\h \u001457\u0015\n2.\tBy barring local school districts from adopting mask requirements, GA-38 and TEA’s Guidance are in direct conflict with the Act.\t\u0013 PAGEREF _Toc83846194 \\h \u001459\u0015\n3.\tThe ","cbCaib52LZXByaeq","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaib52LZXByaeq","docx",181574,74,"English","en",105,"# I. INTRODUCTION\n# II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND\n## A. Executive Order GA-38 prohibits mask requirements\n## B. Plaintiffs’ medical disabilities and increased COVID-19 risk\n## C. Deprivation of meaningful access to public schools\n## D. Extensive enforcement of GA-38\n# III. ARGUMENT & AUTHORITIES\n## A. Subject matter jurisdiction (Section 504, ADA, Ex parte Young)\n## B. Violations of the ADA and Rehabilitation Act\n## C. Preemption by the ADA and Section 504\n## D. Preemption by the American Rescue Plan Act\n## E. Necessity of an injunction and public interest\n# IV. CONCLUSION","[{\"question\":\"Why do Plaintiffs argue sovereign immunity does not bar their claims?\",\"answer\":\"The brief argues sovereign immunity is unavailable as a defense for Plaintiffs’ two statutory claims under Section 504 and the ADA.\"},{\"question\":\"How does Ex parte Young factor into the case?\",\"answer\":\"Plaintiffs contend Ex parte Young overcomes any sovereign-immunity defense because Defendants actively enforce GA-38 in a way that violates federal law.\"},{\"question\":\"What remedies do Plaintiffs seek and why?\",\"answer\":\"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.\"}]","PLAINTIFFS’ TRIAL BRIEF - Legal argument for injunction | DOCX",1788224365,26,{"code":4,"msg":31,"data":32},"ok",{"site_id":24,"language":23,"slug":33,"title":14,"keywords":34,"description":15,"schema_data":35,"social_meta":87,"head_meta":89,"extra_data":91,"updated_unix":28},"plaintiffs-trial-brief-legal-argument-for-injunction","",{"@graph":36,"@context":86},[37,54,69],{"@type":38,"itemListElement":39},"BreadcrumbList",[40,44,48,51],{"item":41,"name":42,"@type":43,"position":11},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":45,"name":46,"@type":43,"position":47},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/","Template",2,{"item":49,"name":13,"@type":43,"position":50},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/letters/",3,{"item":52,"name":14,"@type":43,"position":53},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/plaintiffs-trial-brief-legal-argument-for-injunction/168069/",4,{"url":52,"name":14,"@type":55,"author":56,"headline":14,"publisher":58,"fileFormat":61,"inLanguage":23,"description":15,"dateModified":62,"datePublished":63,"encodingFormat":61,"isAccessibleForFree":64,"interactionStatistic":65},"DigitalDocument",{"name":9,"@type":57},"Person",{"url":41,"name":59,"@type":60},"DocShare","Organization","application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document","2026-09-04","2026-09-01",true,{"@type":66,"interactionType":67,"userInteractionCount":47},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":68},"ViewAction",{"@type":70,"mainEntity":71},"FAQPage",[72,78,82],{"name":73,"@type":74,"acceptedAnswer":75},"Why do Plaintiffs argue sovereign immunity does not bar their claims?","Question",{"text":76,"@type":77},"The brief argues sovereign immunity is unavailable as a defense for Plaintiffs’ two statutory claims under Section 504 and the ADA.","Answer",{"name":79,"@type":74,"acceptedAnswer":80},"How does Ex parte Young factor into the case?",{"text":81,"@type":77},"Plaintiffs contend Ex parte Young overcomes any sovereign-immunity defense because Defendants actively enforce GA-38 in a way that violates federal law.",{"name":83,"@type":74,"acceptedAnswer":84},"What remedies do Plaintiffs seek and why?",{"text":85,"@type":77},"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.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":52,"og:type":88,"og:title":14,"og:site_name":59,"og:description":15},"article",{"robots":90,"canonical":52},"index,follow",{"doc_id":7,"site_id":24},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":93},[94,99,104,109,114,119,124,127,132],{"id":95,"doc_module":11,"doc_module_name":46,"category_name":96,"show_sort_weight":97,"slug":98},11,"Presentations",90,"presentations",{"id":100,"doc_module":11,"doc_module_name":46,"category_name":101,"show_sort_weight":102,"slug":103},12,"Resumes",80,"resumes",{"id":105,"doc_module":11,"doc_module_name":46,"category_name":106,"show_sort_weight":107,"slug":108},14,"Invoices",70,"invoices",{"id":110,"doc_module":11,"doc_module_name":46,"category_name":111,"show_sort_weight":112,"slug":113},15,"Posters",60,"posters",{"id":115,"doc_module":11,"doc_module_name":46,"category_name":116,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":118},16,"Social Media",50,"social-media",{"id":120,"doc_module":11,"doc_module_name":46,"category_name":121,"show_sort_weight":122,"slug":123},17,"Forms",40,"forms",{"id":12,"doc_module":11,"doc_module_name":46,"category_name":13,"show_sort_weight":125,"slug":126},30,"letters",{"id":128,"doc_module":11,"doc_module_name":46,"category_name":129,"show_sort_weight":130,"slug":131},21,"Paper Templates",5,"papers-templates",{"id":133,"doc_module":11,"doc_module_name":46,"category_name":134,"show_sort_weight":4,"slug":135},158,"General","general-158"]