UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT August Term, 2023 (Argued: October 27, 2023 Decided: October 15, 2024) Docket No. 22-2178-cv

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, BY LETITIA JAMES, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

NIAGARA-WHEATFIELD CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant-Appellee.

Before: CABRANES, SACK, AND MERRIAM, Circuit Judges.

On this appeal, we address the issue of what a state bringing suit in federal court must show to establish its standing in parens patriae. The State of New York, through its Attorney General, sued the Niagara-Wheatfield Central School District for its officials’ alleged failure to address repeated complaints of student-on- student sexual assault, sexual harassment, and gender-based violence and bullying. The United States District Court for the Western District of New York (Sinatra, Jr., Judge) dismissed this case on the pleadings, concluding that the state lacked parens patriae standing to bring the suit. The court reasoned that because the incidents alleged were factually distinct from one another, the State of New York had not shown that the School District’s failure to act in those instances constituted a broader “policy or practice” of discriminating against student victims of gender-based violence and harassment. Absent such a policy or practice, the court concluded, the State of New York could not, as a matter of law, make the showing required for parens patriae standing that the School District’s conduct affected a “substantial segment” of its population. No. 22-2178-cv New York v. Niagara-Wheatfield Central School District

We conclude that showing an injurious policy or practice enforced against a target population is not necessary to satisfy the substantial-segment prong of the parens patriae standard. We further conclude that the State of New York has met its burden of pleading parens patriae standing at this stage of the litigation, and therefore

REVERSE the judgment of the district court and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Judge Cabranes concurs dubitante in a separate opinion.

ALEXANDRIA TWINEM (Barbara D. Underwood, Andrea Oser, on the brief), for LETITIA JAMES, Attorney General for the State of New York, Albany, NY, for Appellant.

DANIEL R. LECOURS (Svetlana K. Ivy, on the brief), Harris Beach PLLC, Albany, NY, and Pittsford, NY, for Appellee.

SACK, Circuit Judge:

This appeal requires us to identify what a state bringing a lawsuit in a federal court must show to establish so-called “parens patriae” standing. When a state sues in parens patriae, “literally[,] [as] ‘parent of the country’”, it “traditionally [takes on] the role of . . . sovereign and guardian of persons under a legal disability to act for themselves.” West Virginia v. Chas. Pfizer & Co., 440 F.2d 1079, 1089 (2d Cir. 1971). The “doctrine has its antecedent in the common- law concept of the ‘royal prerogative,’” which similarly recognized “the king’s 2 No. 22-2178-cv New York v. Niagara-Wheatfield Central School District

inherent power to act as the guardian” for those without the legal capacity to vindicate their rights. Purdue Pharma L.P. v. K