[PatrickHenry]

It seems to me the new board did not rescind the ID policy of the old board specifically because they wanted to have a court decision that was obviously going to be against the policy. If there was no decision, a future board could bring it back. But now it seems like the IDer's are coming up with conspiracy theories that it was all about getting $$ to the ACLU via legals fees if there was a court decision instead of an out of court settlement.

You remember correctly. I'll see if I can find an old thread on this issue, but it's clear that the important thing was to get an injunction against the unconstitutional policy. A mere withdrawal of the policy at that point would have accomplished nothing, and the legal fees would still have been awarded. There was no way to stop that. This is typical Discovery Institute spin.

[Sandy]

the important thing was to get an injunction against the unconstitutional policy. A mere withdrawal of the policy at that point would have accomplished nothing, and the legal fees would still have been awarded. There was no way to stop that.

I don't think so. If the district court had dismissed the case as moot, the plaintiffs wouldn't be considered a "prevailing party" and therefore wouldn't be eligible for attorney's fees.