Park

MEMORANDUM

We affirm the dismissal for lack of standing. Because the plaintiffs did not address the district court’s holding that they lacked standing to assert their free speech and free exercise claims irt their opening brief, we will not reconsider that issue on appeal. See Greenwood v. FAA, 28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir.1994) (‘We review only issues which are argued specifically and distinctly in a party’s opening brief.”); cf. Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Mineta, 534 U.S. 103 , 122 S.Ct. 511, 513-14 , 151 L.Ed.2d 489 (2001).

The district court did not address the plaintiffs’ standing to assert their separate Establishment Clause claims. We requested supplemental briefing on this issue and conclude that the plaintiffs lack standing to assert these claims as well.

To have standing to assert an Establishment Clause claim, the plaintiffs must show that they are “directly affected” by the challenged practice. See Sch. Dist. of Abington Township v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 , 225 n. 9, 83 S.Ct. 1560 , 10 L.Ed.2d 844 (1963). At the pleadings stage, the plaintiffs have the burden of “alleging specific facts” that establish a basis for standing. Schmier v. United States Court of Appeals…