agree. Because Article III of the Constitution limits federal courts’ jurisdiction to actual cases and controversies, we do not have jurisdiction where “the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.” United States Parole Comm’n v. Geraghty, 445 U.S. 388, 396, 100 S.Ct. 1202, 1208, 63 L.Ed.2d 479 (1980) (quotation omitted); see also McPherson v. Michigan High Sch. Athletic Ass’n, 119 F.3d 453, 458 (6th Cir.1997) (en banc). As Buntin is no longer employed by the Board, the injunction enjoining the Board from assigning her duties not prescribed by Ky.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 159.140 (Banks-Baldwin 1997) no longer affects her legal interests. We therefore conclude that Buntin’s request for injunctive relief is moot. Cf. Ahmed v. University of Toledo, 822 F.2d 26, 27 (6th Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>). IV. CONCLUSION Because we conclude that
recognizing the right of students to challenge on first amendment grounds actions of school officials which circumscribe the range of ideas to which students are exposed holding that the defendant school officials did not create the students danger or increase their risk of harm where female students were physically verbally and sexually molested by male students in a unisex bathroom and in a darkroom holding moot the plaintiffs challenge to a universitys requirement that foreign students carry health insurance where named plaintiffs were no longer students at the university holding that female students claim was moot because the university they were suing had already established a womens lacrosse team which was the relief the students originally sought holding that universitys amendment of regulation made moot a challenge to regulations