regulatory standards treat all miners dignity respect and special concern for their special foreigner ability those rules and many dramatic changes in the law and circumstances since one thousand nine hundred and seventy all for permitting  rules and also requires them to consider comments from the public not just from the plaintiffs to be sure terminations agreement would not create a legal who it will simply mean the comprehensive standards set forth in these new rules let's assume that the least with regard to accompany minors there are a major are significant as i understand your argument that wouldn't necessarily m changes and circumstances whether there has been a durable remedy created in another other means that new rules are and just the notion that this is so broad and all could cover such a large portion of the immigration system is unmanageable class action and has serious implications for democratic process at it operated under a consent decree so we think all that works together but i think i also want to dispute the the floors or i want to be very clear about that he the judge rely almost exclusively on those those it that the surest respect to family custody but this court in two thousand and sixteen said quite clearly that square with the floors agreement provisions and i think what we're what i'm trying to see is in the in this course ruling incident of authorize this court also was very clear to say that the floors agreement didn't answer key questions about how to handle a company miners so when there was a regulatory void discord acknowledged and the provisions the journey to the lower core and concerns about were filling that void it and they did not directly contradict anything in the chicest rules pertain to unaccompanied minors was concerned that they were some of them were turks were used the present tense rather than the word shall and therefore were not i dunno asians the regulatory preamble makes clear the where the court or plaintiffs are telling a judge just what it shall do and i don't think that's meant to be a substitute substantive change the rule regulation red light regulatory language that the plaintiffs sign and there's the tin cup case and the north supreme court case they talk about very different circumstances and those who are in norton said you have to look at all surrounding circumstances here the surrounding circumstances which that that is indeed your component of the immigration challenge today and wanted this to court said the parties didn't really address the details so he said the parties did not address the quote quote complex issues and basically i guess i have west how does this this not large number showing up at the border have to do with the actual conditions that are being addressed by the change which complies with all of the requirements of even exhibit one to the floors agreement which are the core revisions designed to create new vironment and is suitable to child welfare which all apply under these rules to the family residential centers and it did not address the issues of what happens if you separate the increase for the child and the accompanying parent this court last year said well there's a lower parole standard for the child higher parole standard for the parent and if a parent it to be under twenty days and he agencies at work to make it as fast as possible under the circumstances it's a short period when the district court allow a family residential centers to be used so the family can stay together and the scrabble fair process could be looked at after credible fear the family can really be released under the same standard humanitarian or is it likely won't not a flight risk or danger under the revised parole standards this rule creates so it creates a parole standard that for the children but i again it won't be it allows the ending in and i need to look again at exactly what the regular the post credible fear parole standard is for a family being processed under that credible fear process as a unit with without issues of family separation without issues of are they going have to waive one consent decree or another consent decree and the notion that the floor is agreement addresses this and solve this problem and let me add to that the notion that a core purpose of the fullers agreement was to require a child's release when the child can be with the parent in custody in a safe environment for a short period of time is norm but the real focus of judge she was before the congress for your determination in that period where just last year this court said you had different role standards for the parents in china and as part of the time for credible fear and  is kind of the ways designed to be and i think the the rules she took those challenges and came up with a pretty solid solution and we're and we're we're we're running overtime but will make sure you get a chance response i've got a question there are really they're being held outside the country but i want to be clear we are relying on several aspects of rufo a hornet including changed conditions and the change conditions isn't just about how many people are who are today or in two thousand and nineteen or in february it's about the fact that without eight a droll system to address the situation which the floors agreement doesn't include there are repeated migration crises and they will happen again and when it happens the hands on so when it happens again we don't have clear rules on how to address it we have cost of litigation under the floors agreement which was never designed to address this was this but in texas and pennsylvania they couldn't be less so it's see it isn't that there aren't rules is that you don't think there are appropriate you know the this court that our didn't really ten and when we were here in two thousand and sixteen we said well it's clear this agreement didn't come running a company miters cuz there was no provision for licensing for families and this court said that it does cover unaccompanied minors but you're right they really didn't didn't really contend with how because you're going to work and now it's been flipped on us again to say oh you can't even do that license you agreed to reach one long ago it is just those two those two considerations just can't go together i mean there is really that the unstated rationale for defense desired changes is that indefinite detention of accompanied children will deter others from seeking the end of united states without authorization that really is what it credible fear determination is that right now it is not your are st of all not everyone passes the credible fear determination and so then the question becomes how long are they going to be detained while they seek to have in properly licensed facilities if they so wish for how else are long they're going their children are going to be teaching and if they have relatives in other individuals in united states who are available to receive their children they can make that decision government would have discretion to decide to detain the children regardless of the parents wishes for howsoever long it may take them to complete their asylum or or move seedings in other words it would be up to the discretion of the this is what's called a binary choice no one's happy with it but if the government insists on detaining individuals or families in order to deter others from coming forward the limits of the law are what we have to live with  that right of course now what the government has done here is that is that many states ask even the majority do not deem appropriate facilities in which children have regular daily contact with unrelated adults as being suitable for dependent care licensing that that really is the problem the government has here now i thought that all made pennsylvania and texas  the court on the details of what those disputes involve i will say that most states will not license facilities in which children have regular contact with unrelated adults we can we can follow that with them but the efforts to get texas to go along with the government's plan since then but initially it was just we're going to have still is here we know they're not licensed and we're just going to operate them without a license so so that has been the reality and whether the i mean doesn't that give some brains to the notion that we agreement just didn't deal with this i mean because at the end there was no understanding that there is problem was that exist i suppose because at the time and this is what the well i don't necessarily terminations on that any your honor if you look at the regulations that were on the books at the time the floor settlement was signed you will see that there is a regulation that dresses the situation found and encourages the government released the families parents along with the children now the government can decide that it does not want to release the parents enforce the families in this binary choice but that doesn't mean that the parties it is a it is a call a sophie's choice either a choice whatever you want to call it it is not something that is pleasant but the parents still and families would still have the right to determine choice that the government has forced upon the families we do not like it but in two thousand and sixteen the court ruled that the floor settlement does not give the parents any rights release and so now we're forced with into this written stance but the point is is  at least it's a choice that the families have is not a choice that the government is making for the families regardless of their writ of their wishes it's the best we can do under a bad circumstance but the remainder of the conflicts between the between the regulations and the four settlement are many it's not only this one there is the the aspirational statements just she referred to earlier we don't think that there's any reason their government has never given a coherent explanation as to y changed circumstances that the government should have be able to go forward without the burden of the earlier training so i for purposes of whether they think self serving aided you know which i think is a very weak are argument on the government's yes these differences obviously matter but for purposes of a valuating the notion that there should be a modification because it changed her stance and i don't know that these distinctions matter of them well i think that again your honor the question then becomes how do i do the changes the departures in the regulations from the settlement address the change circumstance yes that i think is there any members of the court of already pointed out more than one they the only way that they make sense is if the government can justify those changes as a as as a means of deterring other immigrants from coming to united states without authorization as we've pointed out in our briefing that is not causing an unconstitutional use of civil the tension deterren is something that should be confined to the criminal law now the other part of this of course is that so so the question really has to be is how does he show removing the children from  between these changes in departures from the from the from the settlement and how do the address the problem that the government in its ways is created for itself because it refused to police parents is there some middle ground here and we sent you off mediate you got nowhere but is there an a and you know ground in terms of something like sending it back to modify and greener terminate parts of it and other parts or something like that well in terms of the agreement itself the germination files after all this is a con and the termination clause is quite clear that either it is an all or nothing circumstance what paragraph four he has modified by the situations as is quote all terms of this agreement shelter minae forty five days following defense publication of final regulations implementing his agreement  most i think most of your complaint to me at least you know seem to be senator around the provisions that pertain to a company of minors entirely i think your honor that the district court was under facing a very difficult circumstance if it was going to do that given all of the instances for example in which the present tense is substituted for the shall whether the court was going to go through the regulations which are quite extensive and begin to edit i believe the judge she was correct in saying you know that's really not the district court's job to do to rewrite the regulations here  you can form the seller you know that being said i and so i so i believe that she was acted reasonably and with with concern for the confusion it would be created if these regulations were to be going into effect from the regulation changes it from an opt out to an opt in procedure that's one which is it significant when you're talking about children who don't speak english for the most are don't understand the u s legal system so it's a significant change essentially that it's children who are in secure placements have been have been given bond redetermination swears children who are not in secure placements there's been an opt in process that's that was a agreement between the parties based upon the government's representation that children placed in licensed facilities or shelters are presumably not dangerous and not now that's something the government can change tomorrow as he said and which point players would insist on an automatic bond hearing for every child regardless of the type they happen to be in so so there has been some accommodation mun on the part of the parties when it has made sense to do so in players remain willing to modify the salmen or at least to to agree that it that deviations from it are appropriate given certain circumstances but to eliminate the opt in opt person's opt out requirement entirely which would then allow the government to declare children who  theoretically plaintiffs might be satisfied if the process that h h s were to set up in lieu of an immigration judge hearing were as robust as the immigration judge proceeding firewall if you will there's no indication that that would be the case with the a j gesturing examiners they would not be judges they would be open minded by each as itself as i read a regulation so that so the level of procedural protection is not nearly e so the end with those forty nine thousand and eighty dollars just does not think their flight is as it does not think they're a danger and that's just like what happens in almost every case so we think that on hearing provision is really solid it takes to heart this court's even a dividing line for judge g to terminate the agreement except with respect to family custody and let the regulations go into effect except with respect to family custody and we can fight about family custody further and again  just josie didn't really consider that an option i don't think plaintiffs are really open to that kind of an option but we think that that is a clear dividing line it's very hard to justify continue agreement for initial custody and for  process the family could be detained and in review by the court of appeals are be clear that is not part of the extra process and process allows a quick the seven day review by an immigration judge but it does not go to the