You may not be using standing in the technical sense, but establishing standing should not be very difficult. A suit by a custodial parent along with a child who attends the relevant school would fairly clearly meet the test for standing. A suit by a taxpayer within the relevant school district might also have standing, but why borrow trouble when you can get clear standing with a different set of plaintiffs?
It is kinda weird, though-- getting these struck down would be like shooting fish in a barrel, even in the Fifth Circuit, and attorneys' fees would be available. In light of that, it's surprising nobody has sued (although the social consequences of doing so might be severe.)
In a non-lawyerly way, this was my first thought as well. What it does more than anything else is make me worry about the authenticity of the source. I mean I'm sure that some school districts in Texas are pulling stunts, but 10% of the kids, in districts that hillarygayle says are not amongst the most conservative? It's just so easy to pick on Texas, and things like this have turned out to be hoaxes before.
If you see above, jab2 vouches for the source - and it seems very well documented and done by reliable university professor researchers. It's not that easy to get someone who wants to face the social and logistical consequences of suing, I guess - and it may be percolating through the courts as well. Plus, since sex ed courses are usually optional, I suspect that the districts may have an out by simply saying that non-Christian kids can choose not to take the course.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
It is kinda weird, though-- getting these struck down would be like shooting fish in a barrel, even in the Fifth Circuit, and attorneys' fees would be available. In light of that, it's surprising nobody has sued (although the social consequences of doing so might be severe.)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)