Smiley

MEMORANDUM *

With respect to paragraphs 1 and 2 of the district court’s preliminary injunction order dated February 21, 2002, the State Defendants claim that those provisions, which permit all members of the plaintiff class to take the California High School Exit Examination (“CAHSEE”) with the necessary accommodations and modifications, are already in effect. To avoid any ambiguity on this point, we therefore decline to modify paragraphs 1 and 2 of the district court’s order.

The challenge to the waiver provisions of the CAHSEE is not currently ripe for adjudication as to claims relating to poten *781 tial future harms caused by the possible denial of a waiver. See Texas v. United, States, 523 U.S. 296, 300 , 118 S.Ct. 1257 , 140 L.Ed.2d 406 (1998) (noting that the ripeness doctrine is triggered when the claims at issue relate to “contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur at all” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

The challenge is ripe as to the claim that the uncertainty of the waiver process burdens students’ rights to participate in the examination by forcing them to choose between forgoing the use of modifications or risking the…