the Hospital's function and business within this community.” 4 . The dissent also argues that H.B. 1390 will not have the effect of closing the Clinic because the closure is actually caused by the actions of private parties' — the private hospitals that denied the admitting privileges applications. See Post at 449-51. We have no occasion to consider this argument as it too has been waived. As discussed above, the State's opening brief accepts that the Act will force the closure of the Clinic. And to the extent the State has challenged the factual findings of the district court, except with regards to the rational basis issue, the State only provides conclusory challenges without any argument, so these challenges are also waived. See Kohler v. Englade, 470 F.3d 1104, 1114 (5th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>); see also Fed. R.App. P. 28(a)(8)(A)
holding that an appellant waived a claim where he failed to cite any legal authority in support of an argument in his appellate brief holding that an issue is waived where the defendant failed to develop an argument in his appellate brief and cited no authority holding that plaintiff failed to adequately brief an issue where he failed to cite any legal authority for the proposition holding an argument waived for failure to cite authority holding waiver results if an appellant fails to properly develop an issue or cite to legal authority to support his contention in his appellate brief