good morning your honour's may it please the court edwards asked for sammy smith i'd like to begin by discussing why this export control scheme is substantially overbroad under the st amendment other than address some of the government's arguments including its claim why do you say the scheme why is this about the entire statute etc and if it isn't your beef really with that one line of the regulations that export anything as far as the record shows that could be classified as data he's charged with exporting pistol parts that's right but that but the key to your question was the if if it several people you agree that if it is ever ball then  oh strange kind of legislative intent because it's hypothetical legislative intent because presumably the legislature didn't think about what should be done if if parts of the statute were unconstitutional whereas even one of the statute there's a delegation to the executive to list things that are prohibited why would we attribute to congress and intent that the executive classify as exportable items are not even items but information that would be unconstitutional to prohibit hyper that is zooming for the sake of the argument that it is unconstitutional to your i'm not sure why you need to attribute it to congress congress made it a crime to willfully export defense articles right and the executive says i suppose they said and the defense article is the new york times and so we're going to prohibit any export of the new york times or any reading of the new york times on a radio or television station that reaches as far as canada that would make this if the executive did that that would make the entire statute unconstitutionally overbroad because the executive branch and it's an unconstitutional definition or item is ation of something to the statute as it involves a defense article but if the regulations were promulgated by the state department they have the force of law  right fine they do but why is that why does that have anything to do with the constitutionality of the statute under which your client is prosecuted the statute doesn't say anything about data or information the statute says defense articles and now the executive branch throws something in there which hypothetically assuming for the sake of the argument is unconstitutional why does that make the whole statute unconstitutional why does that make the legitimate things that clearly raise no st amendment objection that the executive also classifies as defense articles that can't be exported somehow now it's all about this one thing that is a substantial category of information that congress maybe never even imagined would get classified under this statute i think there's a two part  answer st my recollection is fading me but i do think somewhere in the statute it does refer to related technical data so i don't think it purely comes from the executive but even if it did come from the executive i think at the government by the way i think agrees with us on this point this was not just an afterthought by the state apart this was essential to the entire i call it scheme only because it's both the statute and the reds the government agrees the congress would not have congress and the executive what not have this scheme if it only covered the physical armaments really is if i don't hear the government to say that we'll hear from them in a minute but your view is that if congress knew the blueprints for a other and what they would have done presumably is an act technical risk restrictions restrictions on the technical information that complies with the st amendment in other words something concrete i'm sorry point us to something some language concrete language from congress that supports this particular contention sorry i don't have a legislative history in front of me but i do have what we said in our reply brief which is which is from the government's brief in the defense distributed case of a they said quote the authority to regulate arms trafficking would be of negligible practical value if it encompassed only the exploitation of particular military equipment but not the exploitation of blueprints specified in the construction of that very same equipment i think that's right i think that's right in some ways this is a silly exercise because we are as you said in gauging i pathetically as to what congress would do had they known that some part of their statute was going to get struck down but you really do to prohibit both of the military equipment and the related technical information but to define it in a way that's consistent with the st amendment you're back to the problem of the state department over defining the technical data or something like that right because that that too if congress would have said oh i see if we can't have this very broad definition that we didn't even inject into the statute then we should define data more carefully they could do that but i don't understand why there is any reason to think that congress would not revert to revising or leaving alone whatever they choose to do the data when they've clearly focused on defense articles and defense articles or what are an issue here it's actually guns so i mean it's not it's not quite the case that we're just talking about a very over broad definition i think you've suggested that to the extent that data in general is in the statute that's not necessarily a problem because of they did a more restrained technical that if the regulations implemented a more restrained technical definition of what data means that would be ok too well that's right we're back to it's the state department's regulation that has in this one section that your client is not charged with violating perhaps over defined what data includes in a way that would be unconstitutional and that that would be such a significant part of the likely applications of this statute that it you know all the works of the legitimate applications that come under the other nine or ten categories in the definition of defense articles that that's what substantial overgrowth would mean i think that we but i think that's common to have the defendant before the court whose conduct is not protected at all by definition that's an overbroad challenge to say but there's all these other people also affected by the statute i'm using statute again it's the whole scheme working together i'm not sure i can move you any more than i try to move you but but this is all goes to to the standing question our position is that because the entire statute together with the regs which have been in existence for about forty years with with changes with an ever growing amount of speech punished that severing excising just the technical information part would be so inconsistent with what both the congress and the executive contemplated that that would be it would not be the court's role to decide well here's the statute we think congress ought to pass these were clearly meant to work together again i think the government agrees with us that that the two components work work to work together and so if we prevailed on the informational part the remedy would be to strike the scheme in which case the conviction would go here for younger but you agree that we have i mean this court has no precedent on this point this court has not believe that claims that it is inhibited from giving public webinars or educational programs because that was interesting about that is that there is somebody who does have standing to raise this issue right i mean they're saying constitutional that's right that's right but that i do my i don't know the case that well either but i understand the government is making some standing arguments there but i think the challenge they're bringing there isn't as applied to them i'm not even sure they could bring will backwards and it normally is but if you find that it would be several then i agree then we don't have standing we wouldn't benefit from a ruling in our favor i see i'm out of time i didn't get to the to the merits but i did want to underscore that some courts out there have given this essentially the back of the hand but there really are very serious st amendment implications from the way the state department has broadly defined both the terms technical data and export good morning your honour's and may it please the court my name is andrew group and i am an assistant u s attorney for the eastern district of new york and i represent the government the defendant asked this court to strike down the entirety of this country's forty year old arms export regulatory control regime despite the fact that he agrees that the ag cia and i talk are constitutional as applied to his conduct that conduct was attempting to smuggle weaponry onto an airplane bound overseas the defendant does not have article three standing to raise his st amendment are arguments answers to the constitutional questions or to constitutional issues he raises about technical data in the abstract have nothing to do with his criminal conviction in other words a decision by this court on those issues would not were dressed his injury likewise the defendant does not have credentials standing to argue on behalf of rd parties such as your own is referred to not before this court simply put the defendant's conviction has nothing to do with the a p cia or it implementing regulations or the that the provisions of those regulations he'll ledgers are constitutionally problematic therefore the court should affirm the defendant's conviction unless your honour's have any particular provision of the regulation which itself has constitutional provisions as conceded by the defendant just now that that revision of the regulations is overbroad and your position is that's not a proper challenge to me but your honor thank you very much thank