UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CHAYA LOFFMAN; JONATHAN No. 23-55714 LOFFMAN, on their own behalf and on behalf of their minor child M.L.; D.C. No. FEDORA NICK; MORRIS TAXON, 2:23-cv-01832- on their own behalf and on behalf of JLS-MRW their minor child K.T.; SARAH PERETS; ARIEL PERETS, on their own behalf and on behalf of their OPINION minor child N.P.; JEAN & JERRY FRIEDMAN SHALHEVET HIGH SCHOOL; SAMUEL A. FRYER YAVNEH HEBREW ACADEMY,

Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; TONY THURMOND, in his official capacity as Superintendent of Public Instruction; LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT; ANTHONY AGUILAR, in his official capacity as Chief of Special Education, Equity, and Access,

Defendants-Appellees. 2 LOFFMAN V. CALIFORNIA DEP’T OF EDUC.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Josephine L. Staton, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted May 7, 2024 Pasadena, California

Filed October 28, 2024

Before: Kim McLane Wardlaw, Morgan Christen, and Mark J. Bennett, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge Wardlaw

SUMMARY *

Free Exercise/Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

In an action brought by two Orthodox Jewish schools (“School Plaintiffs”) and Orthodox Jewish families who alleged Free Exercise and Equal Protection Clause violations arising from California’s nonsectarian requirement for private schools seeking certification to provide students with disabilities a free appropriate public education under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), the panel affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s

* This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. LOFFMAN V. CALIFORNIA DEP’T OF EDUC. 3

dismissal, vacated the district court’s denial of plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, and remanded. As a mechanism for implementing the IDEA’s provisions regarding children placed in private schools, California certifies “nonpublic, nonsectarian schools” or “NPSs” that meet certain statutory instructional criteria. Plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction prohibiting the California Department of Education and its Superintendent of Public Instruction (“State Appellee”), and the Los Angeles Unified School District and its Chief of Special Education, Equity, and Access (“LAUSD Appellee”), from enforcing California’s nonsectarian requirement. The district court granted appellees’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and denied plaintiffs’ request for preliminary injunctive relief. The panel first affirmed the dismissal of the School Plaintiffs’ and the Loffman family’s claims for lack of standing. The complaint failed to plausibly allege that the School Plaintiffs were “able and ready” to apply to serve as NPSs and further failed to plausibly demonstrate that the nonsectarian requirement had any effect on the educational placement of the Loffmans’ son. The panel agreed with the district court that, at a minimum, the Peret family had standing to challenge California’s nonsectarian requirement because the family plausibly alleged an injury to their ability to advocate for placement in a religious NPS that was fairly traceable to California’s nonsectarian requirement and redressable by the sought-after injunction. Because the district court did not address the related issue of whether the LAUSD Appellee has a sufficient connection to enforcement of the nonsectarian requirement to satisfy Article III’s redressability requirement for purposes of injunctive relief, 4 LOFFMAN V. CALIFORNIA DEP’T OF EDUC.