read the a p a on its head by ordering the agency to violate concededly lawful binding in clear statutory deadline that to our knowledge is unprecedented and highly extraordinary in fact t and it seems to me that in your papers you really are not challenging the district court's findings about what i read in shorthand called a slapdash way a in which that replan was put together rather it seems to me that you're challenging only the remedy and if there are the question i have is this if the october st deadline were to remain but there were no requirement to extend beyond december st how would that be legally problematic it might be impractical impossibility but why would it be legal and possible if only the december st deadline were not required to be left aside agency's code the plan was premised on a condition precedent congress is extending the deadline the agency can't tell congress what to do congress knows what to do congress is aware of the endemic when it became apparent in july covert they were hoping that they would get the extension of the deadline and when it became apparent in july that it wasn't going to materialize they had been well you know obviously and this just goes to the no you actually point but like at some point you have to make a call rightly be have a lot of work to do this is a massively complex undertaking you've got to december deadline staring you in the face you hope it gets moved but at some point you realize congress  that there was no way they were going to meet the deadline that is to say whether or not they got congressional changes they just said we're not going to be able to meet the deadline and the cole the plans want to one hundred and twenty dollars days more certainly could meet a new deadline but it's i think plenty of evidence on the record to show that the euro itself said we're not going to meet this deadline period there are there are statements like that when they were trying to negotiate  the in the in the should a zoo or three days that the we plan was put together a fair number of those are some number of those backstops and  that were built in that which were not why the very long term an intense plan on was necessary so you are correct that some of suppose maybe a day after the t r o was entered a day or two we filed a statement in the district court saying all the ways in which were complying with the g r o and it included the fact that we've done back to back i don't i have another question about the response to the clarification order in the sending out of the e mail says we're going until october very wound there has been a great deal of confusion we how do we deal with better analytically in your view i don't think it should play a role it would be remarkable for a district courts you order an agency to violate a lawful binding statutory deadline then and we're here you know three days later on appeal it's too late i don't think you can bootstrap enough that you need that you find i'll say it's too late counsel i'm asking you how that affects the because there's a balancing act for reliance interests of people and and when i'm struggling with this how if at all that plays into the calculus and you're saying it's completely irrelevant even though the entire world has now been told that it's  have i don't think the district judge has i don't think there should be you know cognizable relies interest on a district judge is order that we're appealing but if you're going to take into account you know facts on the ground i would say you know it's not the fact that as  many states have not met to call i am trying to answer forty three states plus d c in puerto rico d are at or above nine hundred and ninety four states are at or above ninety eight and the remaining three are above ninety seven as of last night the lowest state is louisiana ninety seven three and there are namiki in this court telling you to stop the field operations today so that we can go to post processing to get all the downstream things movie and we can at least have a hope of meeting the data to be closed there is something called geo location and there are things like if you need to correct for example duplicate records somebody lived in state eight in march moved in april to stay be they might have filled out two forms or they might have incorrectly was of themselves and still be where they should have been counted stated because that's where where they were living on april st our post processing procedures detect those correct and you can't do that i'm told until the entire nation is closed down all the data is in only then can you begin that sort of correction post processing that's what i'm told and so every day that we're sitting out in the field is a day we're going to lose from post processing and  of the bureau and meet their december st deadline they've been saying that for at least a half a year i mean so certainly but that i think those statements were predicated on business as usual and not the extraordinary measures that not come from within the bureau in came from someone fairly high up within the department comes we know who that person is i'm not sure we necessarily know i assume it's coming from leadership but as  anybody knows but you are unwilling to tell the district court who whom who made that direction so i think some of the e mail suggests that the secretary made the decision and that's entirely proper as a supreme court said in wisconsin against new york the secretary of we'll hear from the other sunday morning honors please the court i want to start with the question that letter that you asked about the balance between accuracy and the deadline during the entire what the district actually ordered they act as if a court ordered them to buy only the law but in arguing that forget that the law also includes a requirement that is those actually or even constitutional to produce an accurate and complete difference does it may in terms of the accuracy question whether there is also a necessity to blow the december st in other words suppose they are able to a problem from your perspective in other words i don't really understand the relevance of requiring them to give nor that december st as a goal if they can do it is an extremely complicated process that has to be done sequentially but this is that's a practical question that's not really a legal question if they're required to keep doing on the ground were and then do the data processing afterwards why do we need to mess with what the end point is to have that i think as a practical matter and you are right and i think it goes well our of your point which is when they focus on violating this at a great deadline that deadline is still several hours away hours because they lacked when they decided in august to change the timelines that deadline was five months away and i think as your honour's pointed out the suggestion that all of  but the continued existence of the injunction and joining the december st deadline doesn't seem to be necessary either to your reparable harm or from the isn't there a difference between the agency's own practical needs and the coroner telling the agency to ignore a statutory deadline in other words it may be as a practical matter impossible but it strikes me as legally different to have a court order of that matter and i don't know if i'm making my point clear but  if there is no in point deadline if there was only the october st date then it's up to the ages a they came mediate if they turn the world upside down the event can ask for more time from congress where they can do what has been done in the past by other agencies and other censuses which is to miss the deadline and seek approval afterwards there are many many options but there are it seems to me not for the court to say redone if you're manipulating if you're happy landing and make a mistake you can fix it right in other words that's not unfixable in the same way even even if it turns out they  some major glitch they can turn around after the fact and say you know we had a major pledge that numbers you know you have to give his chance to fix it it's not the same thing it's not it's not something that can't enumerators and that's something that you really practically can't go back and they're actively trying to get their merits relief on an honest day so i do agree with that i think in terms of the district court's decision if they want to talk about remedy i mean i think on the on the merits the record in this case is as clear as it can be and that in the district court the government said that the documents speak for themselves and i think they most certainly do but focusing on the remedial point i mean really the appears to be ordered i have trouble understanding why europe my arms here i understand exactly why they care about the data collection deadline but i have trouble understanding why they care so much about th and why it works i think that's right i guess my concern here and i don't want to overstate it because obviously keeping them in the field right now is the most important thing but my concern is that the defense position and its base has shifted about separation of powers question where congress has told the agency to do this by a certain date and that seems to me to be different from a docket case which demand vaal that kind of time one problem well i think two things one is i don't know that is that a trade deadline is any different than any other statutory command and the argument in the dock at these with an act of violated the statute and also a constitution and we limited all the shortcuts and went back to the original procedures the record is not clear on that and i actually am glad to give you the opportunity because i think that is a real concern with the ninety nine percent figure is that they likely used it only means something at the at least in the reply there's nothing in there denying what what we are now and we think that is really critical if you're going to look at the ninety nine percent which i think is you know even if you take it at face value is nothing like ayers and this is nothing like what they committed to planned they had came up with very specific rays that many times are going to the houses when they're going to look at them instead of records in all of this is very old in the operational plan and the only reason they cut back on it with the reid plan was because they had it's like up to six times but the point is once you get a response from the house you don't keep going back that's under the normal plan too so i can assure you that the metrics the way they were calculated is ninety nine percent embers etc it is exactly the same way we st deadline part of the injunction and vacated all the rest i think that's going to be really problematic for a couple of reasons st and i as a practical matter don't you impose and i interrupt for just a minute we're just being asked to stay we're not being asked if they get we're not american so the only thing we're doing is dating pending appeal apologize for the mistake and yes to the extent the analyst considering staying but everything except the october  but let me try this again if if we are forced by whatever procedural means to stay in the deal through october st that would impose irreparable harm on his because it would make it impossible to meet the december st deadline that congress is set and the fact that we were all having a lot of conversations about percentages in follow up visits and you know all of these details i cured as we can tell by the fact that the president is in the hospital in terms of the people who are trying to get home is done so the fact is that whatever schedule is in the statute and obviously didn't contemplate this route that isn't to say that we should enjoy it is let's not but it's just say that everybody has to be cautious realistic here and the notion that congress really meant that you have to do it  then projecting it at nine months it would be remarkable because arbitrary capricious because an agency is you know depending on a change in the law the fact is under the constraints of the law as it is today no one has said that we acted arbitrary capricious we within the statutory framework right all that are all the judge said was that we want to consider going outside of the statutory framework so we could get a better s thing i will ask those analysts that we would need that release today but if you just agreed with everything i said here today i would just ask that you issue that decision as promptly as possible so that we have at least some time to go to the supreme court and try to