With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". for injunctive relief invalidating the offending Code provision is moot. Where a student is no longer enrolled in the school whose policies he is challenging, there is no case or controversy sufficient to support prospective in-junctive relief. See Ward v. Santa Fe Indep. Sch. Dist., 393 F.3d 599, 606 (5th Cir.2004); Hole v. Tex. A & M Univ., No. 04-CV-175, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123291, at *20 (S.D.Tex. Feb. 10, 2009). Here, however, Esfeller received a disciplinary sanction, reflected on his academic record and he seeks to prevent the University from enforcing that punishment. Thus, there are collateral or future consequences sufficient to satisfy the case or controversy requirement. Cf. Kennedy v. MindPrint (In re ProEducation Int’l, Inc.), 587 F.3d 296, 299 n. 1 (5th Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>); see also Sullivan v. Houston Indep. Sch.

A: holding that injury to attorneys reputation stemming from disqualification order sufficed to confer article iii jurisdiction for appeal
B: holding that article iii courts have an independent obligation to determine whether subject matter jurisdiction exists
C: holding that article iii standing is not a prerequisite to intervention
D: holding that article iii standing is necessary for intervention
A.