criteria that it be a political period from february th of two thousand and twenty through december st of two thousand and twenty and must have less than five hundred dollars employees intent of congress including all businesses becomes clear when you consider that the religious organization restrict restriction has been lifted established in clauses been an absolute bar to government subsidies yet the p p p loans guarantee p p p loan guarantees have been made available fifteen years the balance been paying in the us government has been happily collecting taxes from this business which is not only a legal enterprise but one which the united states supreme court in shed has said is entitled to st amendment protection at the same level  strict scrutiny absolutely applies it is discriminatory on its face and also as applied every single business imaginable now that every legal business legitimate business is entitled to this except for  germans clubs where there's exotic dancing the that is patently unfair and where the government argues that hey we can we can fund we can choose to subsidize whatever businesses we choose to we don't have to subsidize businesses we don't want to you know in ordinary times that's an interesting argument and may be true but now we have a situation in which the government is causing my clients legitimate business operations to shut down over seventy people have been put out of work because of government mandates and the federal government said you know what we're going to throw a lifeboat a flotation buoy to these businesses that would otherwise finding business to say the nazi party had a printing organization had a pad of printing press and they were put out of business i would absolutely argue that they would be entitled to funding if they were legitimate business to be organized in paying and you discussion some other time right now we're dealing with a legal business i'm not dealing with an illegal business so we don't have to go there we're not illegally black market guns onto the market or drugs we are  like and if it did that why didn't that tell us that it understood that certain other restrictions were going to remain i think the clear language that congress used any business concern and the fact that it waived the prohibitions that it ordinarily exercises involving religious organizations in gambling casinos i think that is very telling as to what congress intended to do which was keep legal business is afloat that the government was putting out of business but it it if it thought that and any business concern that every business why would it go out of its way to lift the restrictions specifically on certain businesses if you're right why would you do that the congress has made clear what its intention was in its language we small business administration the agency having any money period so it's the league of women voters case like these other cases where you are entitled to money but we're going to tell you what you can and can't do with the money  so how do you fit into any of these cases that describe an unconstitutional condition i think a better analogy would be if the government decided to snowplow all roads all businesses except are strip clubs i think that would be clearly a content based discriminatory act or decision my client is being put out of business now because of the executive orders some unmasking their waiters waitresses and cooks they now they're not allowed to have the types of entertainment that keeps them alive the restaurant allowed to be open but the draw to this but you and this is a business that the u s supreme court has said on a number of occasions isn't titled the st amendment protection while you're making to organise to be can be protection argument you a from the government good morning please the court courtney dixon for the government congress please the paycheck protection program under the preexisting framework of the s b a section seven a loan program and provided the paycheck protection program loans are to be offered under the same terms conditions and prophecies as other section seven a loan unless otherwise specified well the congress enumerated several differences in the cares act between section seven a loan and a has permissibly continue to apply that restriction to loans out of the paycheck protection program and as if a court held that doesn't present any constitutional concerns the supreme court has made clear that political branches decision not to subsidize right does not infringe that right on a subject only to rational basis review the place today have suggested on numerous occasions that the government has chosen to fund every business except for government clubs but that's not the case there are several preexisting restrictions they both based on the statute and regulations that congress not amend or alter and the f d a has continued to apply that includes the f d a equally longstanding restriction on loans to business consulting are very political protection clause challenges because again this fall squarely within the line of supreme court precedent that in providing it's of the which the paycheck protection program and that really is the political branches have wide discretion in choosing which activities they do and do not wish to maybe not as clearly as it might have been made but what is your response to that you know in the supreme court unconstitutional conditions cases they've they've drawn a line between situations in which the government has merely defined the limits of programs what it is willing to fund and then situations in which the government's gone beyond that and it's thought to leverage its funding in a way to quote regulate the outside the contours of the program itself which is what is such as the situation that was issue and us the idea or your honor mentioned the league of women voters just bears no resemblance to the case in this circumstance the government set out categories of businesses that are not eligible for a paycheck protection program loads and again as i mentioned the d c circuit and the american association of political consultants case considered this exact argument with respect to the restriction on paycheck protection program loans to with a consulting and lobbying groups and stated that you know the restriction at issue here on the s b a is lending is similar to the situation that was an issue in the supreme court's decision  reagan which the court recognized that that decision there not to provide you know tax deductible status to business is engaged in substantial lobbying was not an unconstitutional condition and the d c circuit made recognize that the paycheck protection program korean sexual businesses you still have to satisfy rational basis review and i'm just not sure that it's enough to say that there's limited resources in you know government gets to some over others so that  typically take into account its constituency and its public mission when providing loans so in the context in deciding you know offering special government backed loans the s b a has quite wide discretion here you know this isn't a regulation or prohibition on anyone did i don't even understand what rational basis was offer it wasn't like you know affect on real estate prices or you know you know near being near children or you know when there more specific reason which here it was just this place what i can see is just there's limited resources and we have to make decisions i don't see in that basis who are favoring or  certain types of businesses but it i mean i think in the context of organizing resources the right or taking resources again with the agencies broad discretion the agencies discussion there may have been briefed but again in the context of rice's resourc and providing you know special government backed loans the agency explained at the station to prioritize its resources in this manner and perhaps of course you know more substantial justification or explanation might be required in the context of when you're regulating speech  didn't political consulting and lobbying activities or private clubs that restrict their membership and a whole host of other organizations under its regulations activities in that manner and although the unions would be able to exercise their st amendment rights as much as they would like the supreme court held that again it was subject to rational basis review just as in reagan and again i think as a you know continue to apply regulations as paycheck protection program continued throughout the summer the s b a exercised its emergency rule making authority to make certain adjustments during the penn demick you know as as we all have and as part of that  a has modified certain restrictions the s b a with respect of faith big organizations has actually announced that it doesn't believe that it wants to continue its policy of excluding faith organizations under not only the paycheck protection program but it's general section seven a loan program as well and that's just a policy change on behalf of the s b a but all this just underscores that again the s b a has wide discretion here and except where congress explicitly made certain changes under the cares act congress otherwise  left again at the authority in this state intact and so again the fact that the f b i has made different policy decisions with respect to different types of organizations doesn't negate the fact that the agency has authority here and yet again kind of answer the question that really because the government is true to subsidize some speech but not all speech doesn't demonstrate a st amendment violation also underscore if i may just the supreme court's language here is that you know the government is required to subsidize their speech at this time because they're experiencing hardships because of the pandemic and big government of course sympathetic to those hardships but the government's not required as a constitutional matter and is not required by the cares act here to provide a subsidy for plaintiff speech and just a piggy back on a question that's just part of what what exactly in the context of so much of the amount of money from the public th vailable to businesses and although congress you know undoubtedly wanted to help a wide swath of businesses at this time you know no legislation pursues that ends at all costs and here the agency again where congress didn't explicitly modify it the agency when it began implementing the cares act continue to apply its restrictions on its loans which reflect again the agency's preexisting policy on the best use of public funds taxpayer funded agency resources and again the agency has the government's reliance on the public mission of nine hundred and ninety six is misplaced in two thousand and twenty we're dealing with an unprecedented circumstance kind of a present unique circumstance not a not just a subsidy to fund the legitimize a brand new lobbying group that was looking for tax exempt status so it could engage in lobbying which doesn't qualify for five hundred and one c three tax exempt status at the reagan case this is a lifeboat to enable a legal license business that's been operated for fifteen years with over seventy employees to stay afloat while the government stopped the wheels of capitalism tools free market in response to the virus cleared of the conclusion the congress intended t trying to understand what would prevent you from making the same argument after this pandemic under the seven a program without reference to the cares act the that my client's engaging in constitutionally protected speech and i may challenge it as i may find myself challenging at that future time but those are the circumstances we're under right now are more dire the government shutting my  client down the state government shutting my client down essentially prevents you from being profitable so i'm dealing with the p p p loans that were announced as being a get a life boat for all businesses to use congress's language during coronavirus restrictions and then that are deemed necessary to stop the spread of the virus