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. 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. ROBERT SACK, C.J. 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 inherent power to act as the guardian” for those without the legal capacity to vindicate their rights. Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Kentucky, 704 F.3d 208, 215 (2d Cir. 2013) (citing Hawaii v. Standard Oil Co., 405 U.S. 251, 257 (1972)). In modern parens patriae suits, a state “must articulate a ‘quasi-sovereign interest’ distinct ‘from the interests of particular private parties,’ such as an ‘interest in the health and well-being — both physical and economic — of its residents in general.’” Id. (quoting Alfred L. Snapp & Son, Inc. v. Puerto Rico, 458 U.S. 592, 607 (1982)). Here, the State of New York, through its Office of the Attorney General (“OAG”), brought suit against the Niagara-Wheatfield Central School District (the “School District”). The OAG alleged in its amended complaint (the “Complaint”) that School District officials had failed 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 the Complaint, concluding that it failed to plausibly plead that the state had parens patriae standing. The court reasoned that, because the OAG had based its claim on factually distinct incidents, it had not successfully asserted that the School District engaged in a broader policy or practice of failing to protect student victims of gender-based violence and harassment. Absent such a policy or practice, it decided, the OAG could not make the showing required for parens patriae standing that the School District’s conduct affected a “substantial segment” of New York State’s population. 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 OAG has met its burden of plausibly alleging 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. BACKGROUND I. Factual Allegations The OAG’s allegations in this litigation fall into three categories: First are detailed assertions of how four of the School District’s students were subjected to sexual assault, sexual harassment, or gender-based violence and bullying by other students; how the four student victims and their parents repeatedly notified the School District and requested remedial action; and how the School District consistently failed to respond adequately. Second is the allegation that the School District knew of, but ignored, at least thirty similar incidents. And third are allegations that the School District’s lapses affected not only the student victims, but the School District’s community as a whole. “In reviewing [the School District]‘s motion for judgment on the pleadings, we draw all facts — which we assume to be true unless contradicted by more specific allegations or documentary evidence — from the Complaint….” Kirkendall v. Halliburton, Inc., 707 F.3d 173, 175 n.1 (2d Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). It bears emphasis that what follows — which many might well find disturbing — are allegations only. But at this stage of the proceedings, a court is concerned with whether allegations are plausible, not whether those allegations have been established as facts. A. The School District’s Alleged Failure to Respond to Four Individual Students’ Complaints of Sexual Assault, Sexual Harassment, and Gender-Based Violence and Bullying T.G.’s rape and subsequent bullying. In May 2018, the OAG alleges, T.G., a female rising senior at Niagara Wheatfield Senior High School (the “High School”), was raped by E.D., a male rising senior at the High School, in E.D.’s home. T.G. reported the incident to the police, after which E.D. was arrested and charged. Soon thereafter, T.G. obtained a restraining order prohibiting E.D. from coming near T.G. outside of the High School. In an attempt to ensure T.G.’s safety during the upcoming 2018-19 school year, T.G.’s mother met with the High School’s then-Principal Michael Mann before the school year began. T.G.’s mother showed Mann the restraining order, as well as text messages from E.D. to T.G. in which E.D. apologized for what he had done to her. Mann promised the mother that T.G. and E.D. would not have contact with one another during the school year, but declined to offer a concrete safety plan or to punish E.D., because the criminal charges had not, at least at that time, been resolved against him. The Complaint further alleges that in the fall of that year, E.D. “went out of his way” to “frequently stand outside [of T.G.'s] classroom,” “wait for her to walk out,” and “glare at her.” Am. Compl. 22. Encounters of this kind happened multiple times every week even though T.G.’s and E.D.’s lockers were not near one another. During the second week of the school year, T.G. notified the school counselor of those incidents. The school took no action. T.G. suffered a panic attack thereafter. At an “open house,” the High School’s Assistant Principal, Jeff White, approached T.G.’s family and stated, in front of other students and parents, that in White’s view, “TG had faked the panic attack for attention.” Id. 24. T.G., a school cheerleader, began to absent herself from cheerleading practice. T.G.’s cheerleading coach refused to excuse her absences, allegedly stating that “girls get assaulted all the time.” Id. 25. In December 2018, other students began to harass T.G. about the rape she had reported. One classmate sent T.G. a picture of E.D. over Snapchat, with the caption “your boyfriend.” Id. 26. T.G. showed the message to Principal Mann, who took no action. Other classmates sent T.G. text messages insinuating that she had enjoyed the sexual assault by E.D. T.G. showed the messages to the assistant principal, who took no action. When classmates told T.G. to “watch her back,” T.G.’s mother informed the School District’s superintendent, but received no response. Id. 28. None of the students involved in the alleged offending behavior was disciplined, and the school continued to permit E.D. to attend class in a room across from T.G.’s classroom. In January 2019, E.D. continued to stare repeatedly at T.G. in the hallway. T.G. began to miss classes because of these events. On May 23, 2019, E.D. pleaded guilty to the assault on T.G., which was charged as rape in the third degree. T.G.’s mother informed the school about the conviction, but was told by Principal Mann that, on the advice of counsel, E.D. would be permitted to attend prom, graduation, and all other end-of-year school functions. Later in May, T.G.’s mother posted on a social media platform an account of how the School District had failed to address her requests to shield her daughter from E.D. By the following morning, T.G.’s mother had received “a hundred messages from other parents in the District, expressing concern that a rapist was in school with their children all year long.” Id. 36. On May 31, 2019, students at the High School organized and attended a walkout in protest over the High School’s handling of the incident. Principal Mann discouraged the walkout. Staff at the High School blocked doorways in an attempt to prevent more students from walking out; several students were suspended because of their participation in the event. A video recording shows Principal Mann telling student protestors that the walkout was not “civil,” even though no violence or unrest had occurred. Id. 39. A female student responded asking whether “[a]llowing all of us girls to be in danger is civil?” Id. The walkout garnered national media attention. E.D. was later expelled. C.C.’s gender-based bullying. C.C., a female student, was bullied because of the clothing she wore while a student at Edward Town Middle School and the High School. Throughout middle school, C.C.’s peers called her “gay” and “transgender” because she wore stereotypically male outfits. Am. Compl. 43. C.C. notified her school counselor, Dr. Peters, who initially permitted her to work in his office but eventually told her to return to the classroom. The bullying continued. As a High School student, C.C. began to wear more stereotypically feminine clothing in an attempt to avoid further harassment. However, C.C.’s peers then called her “fat,” “ugly,” a “slut,” and in one case told her to kill herself. Id.
45-46. Throughout the ninth grade, C.C. and her family repeatedly informed Dr. Peters of this harassment, but neither he nor any administrator in the School District took action to prevent its further occurrence. In December 2019, after the onset of anxiety and depression, and having seen a counselor and a psychiatrist, C.C. stopped attending the High School. When C.C. requested a transfer to a neighboring high school, the School District refused. Instead, it called Child Protective Services, New York State’s agency tasked with protecting the well-being of children, because C.C. was missing classes. As a result of her harassment and bullying, unmitigated by any protective action by the School District, C.C. dropped out of the High School. At the time the Complaint was filed in federal district court in August 2021, C.C. had not received a high school diploma. A.S.’s gender-based harassment and physical assault. A.S., a female student, attended the High School in the spring of 2020. Around that time, a male football player at the High School created a TikTok video displaying other football players’ messages mocking A.S. The video included comments by one boy that A.S.’s sweatpants made it look like she had male genitalia, and by another boy that he would not have sex with A.S. The video was shared among the school’s student body. Shortly thereafter, female friends of the football players began harassing A.S. A school pep rally turned into a violent physical assault of A.S. Members of the sophomore class engaged in derogatory chanting about A.S. and five sophomore girls displayed a poster about A.S. reading “We don’t want you.” Am. Compl. 54. The five girls then assaulted A.S., hitting her in the head eleven times. A.S.’s mother went to the principal’s office and described the incident to Acting Principal Jeff White. The High School did not take any action. Instead, White suggested to A.S.’s mother that A.S. should not attend the following day’s school dance. A.S.’s mother repeatedly followed up with both the High School and the School District’s superintendent seeking protective steps for her daughter. She received no response, and nothing was done. Because A.S. had become afraid of attending the High School, she eventually transferred to a private school. L.W.’s sexual assault and subsequent sexual harassment and bullying. L.W., a female student, attended second grade at Errick Road Elementary School (the “Elementary School”) in 2017. That year, L.W. was sexually assaulted in her housing complex by a neighbor, a fifth grader at the Elementary School. L.W.’s mother reported the sexual assault to local law enforcement officials, Elementary School principal Nora O’Bryan, and School District Superintendent Daniel Ljiljanich. A court placed the assailant on probation and ordered the assailant’s family to move out of L.W.’s housing complex. However, the School District took no action against the assailant, or to shield L.W. from the assailant at school. Instead, Superintendent Ljiljanich informed L.W.’s mother that, if she wished L.W. to be safe from her assailant, she would have to move to another area so L.W. could attend a different school. According to the allegations, L.W.’s assailant continued to attend L.W.’s school and would eat lunch in a space near L.W. every day. When passing L.W., the assailant would touch L.W.’s arm and tell her that she was “damaged goods” and that “no one [would] ever love [her].” Am. Compl. 64. On another occasion, the assailant followed L.W. into a school bathroom. Superintendent Ljiljanich did not return L.W.’s mother’s repeated calls, and Principal O’Bryan did nothing to protect L.W., despite L.W.’s mother’s expressed concerns. L.W.’s assailant eventually moved out of the School District. Even then, however, other students at the Elementary School now allegedly called L.W. “damaged goods,” based on what the assailant had said about L.W. Id. 67. They also told L.W. that she had enjoyed what her assailant had done to her. The sexual assault and the continued bullying thereafter caused L.W. to develop physical manifestations of stress and required her to seek personal counseling for two years. B. The School District’s Failure to Respond to Known Similar Incidents The OAG further alleges in its Complaint that the School District was notified of “at least thirty incidents of sexual assault, harassment, or genderbased bullying in the last few years.” Am. Compl. 69; see also id. 5 (similar).1 The School District has taken no action in response to any of them, be it by “creat[ing] a single written safety plan,” “document[ing] any follow-up to ensure the safety of any of these students,” taking other “basic steps to prevent or respond to future sexual assaults,” or “tak[ing] any steps to develop preventative policies or reform its practices.” Id.
