of those federal funds as the us supreme court noted so some of the texas clear statement rules are not simply interpreted guidelines the requirement of a clear statement in the text of a statute that congress has specifically consider state sovereign immunity and is intentionally legislated on this clear statement will avoid circumstances where such as the one percent here where congress might legislate on a sensitive topic urgently or without to do because the waiver of sovereign immunity is not at some point because that's the basis is understand the record of the district court's ruling your honor the district court that just records error was in substituting its judgment for that of congress statues that are and were intended to fight discrimination but but the actor has an explicit provision in it and the residual cause basically says that the pliers the sarin immunity will be waiting for any other federal statute prohibiting discrimination by recipients of federal financial assistance i don't know short of doing what you seem to suggest that is including the language directly in the statute i don't know how much more clearer congress could have been in terms of what it clear as it is because since that nd i think you know we're not asking this court just to say that the residual positive never on what we are saying is whether congress makes no reference whatsoever to mechanisms for title nine and specifically says that that those are and ministry to procedure run by a part of h s or d privates are private lawsuits implied cause of action at no time does this in in two thousand ten i think you know i think that the critical point here your honor is that influences are not enough and that sovereign immunity is just that you know congress if congress wants to condition this it can do so but it must be explicit and it must give state opportunities to the bar in that's being made and and and what without that without that i mean you get you get circumstances waiver of sovereign immunity so is it simply because it's not direct enough that no amount of notice is sufficient to put the state to to the burden of litigating in federal court thirty five years has any court of appeals ever failed that to act as a waiver of sovereign immunity no your honor and that is because there at there have never been another clear on ending admonition that it had that a waiver of sovereign immunity has to be clear can't be employed can't be inferred has to be self evident  not aware of any where sovereign immunity is approved without a specific statutory reference in the statute that does the waiving the nominates that statute  what's your best case for the contrary proposition or the proposition by the name by me i believe there is a case to the contrary either i believe that it's an open question that's been left open by both discrimination by a recipient of federal financial assistance that is exactly what section fifty seven and waiver occurs when you read that that shooting in conjunction with section five thousand and fifty seven which is what this poor have done with i don't mind and korea and the rehab act and korea the supreme court has stated the united states with georgia that and only applied through implication so i've obviously you know you disagree with that but separate from that i think levy pointed out was that it's also relevant to cyber consider whether or not the statute in question is focus laser like focus on discrimination or whether or not as a broader focus other than discrimination i suppose the argument here is that the as as part of its component obviously the element of limiting discrimination but it's much broader than that it deals with health care issues and the like so why isn't that analysis applicable here we don't have a statue that deals exclusively or primarily with discrimination it's much broader and we have this issue of finding a way or by implication the why doesn't the combination of those two things warrant a different result the same result here the question about sort of interpret the residual clause your honor this is this is the same kind of separation of powers issue that's presented in other residual clause cases so for example in one of the immigration question that they remain available and the united states there's no barrier to suit by the united states in any circumstance so so the question is a more limited one which is congress in ten that suits by private parties