away needed to be closer to the campus there was even a bit let me ask a hypothetical of my own that has nothing to do with broccoli but let's suppose that the foundation raise money foundation i've found no simpler way to say this but the university drove this bus and the foundation was along for the ride your provided foundation yes why shouldn't big review because the act the actions that caused the alleged antitrust injury which is the threshold question we have to the university and the foundation it's very clear in their complaint but even have a section of america where i'm sorry a section called antitrust injury to plaintiffs i believe it's paragraph sixty four  clear as described in paragraph fifty which i will return to the occupancy rates in play which facilities have climbed substantially since the two thousand and eleven housing restriction went into effect consequently revenues generated by play have dropped substantially causing great economic harm to players there are that concept that allegation tied to the two thousand lebanese housing restriction because i call it the amended policy  is repeated numerous times from paragraph forty eight to a pair of sixty four there is no allegations pacifically the background about how the university and the foundation entered into this partnership this public private is a promotion dismissed the only antitrust injury an alleged derives from the amendment of the housing policy in two thousand and eleven i am prepared to address the broader concept of the i have a partnership laws is what we're really talking competitive bidding had to do with the construction of the house itself not the amendment of the policy which caused the injury that's complained of by the by the appellants so i guess the behind the manner in which the state acts but rather simply said the authority the state have the authority to do what it did and clearly the enabling statute for passion says that for the very first to provide the housing they provided how they got there is not with all due respect such an issue that the federal courts get into it in the anti trust situation is wrong as of the anti competitive acts as well as the entire competitive injuries resulting from those acts as having been of a direct result of actions of the state acts in conjunction with or in collaboration with a private party if it's the state that story me acting that private party also is immunized otherwise every single ad i trust pla ended writing by suing the pirate party with whom the state may have contracted with this district or her pride make it come to the same place yes yes you are they would we took the position that the that it wasn't necessary to get there but yes we could we articulated derives from a b the statutory scheme the requirement that they provide appropriate educational facilities including including scheme it's a it's a state statute that creates a passion system and then provides powers authorities checks and balances review by the different layers of the past in the past the honor and that and i'm glad you raised because i didn't mean to leave that out the district court did not rule on that but that's an entirely different and actually a broader immunity than parker is and let me just civically established policy in the first place and amended the policy foundation had no ability to do that but let's assume through discovery the worst case scenario is that the executive director of the foundation ran across the car a minister of the university office of president said you need to do something that he did more students because i can't pay the bonds so the university changes its policy for the exact reason that m for contents that is clearly petitioning the state under nor and it would be immune because the action the member the policy came from the state so it's state action but we as a private party petition to make it happen we are immune under nor paid into the other point that i just i want to make have nine seconds these the highlands replaced existing increase on campus residency requirements for students from nearly the freshman year to the software year end as well and that this was in  fact an action that is quintessentially justifiable under parker munity because what little we know about parker merely comes from the cases a parker and hoover  circumstances where you can say has the state chosen to act within its traditional sovereign powers as a state and then if he answer is yes parker immunity applies whether or not that action is anti competitive or not whether or not characterizations of malice ill will or were greed are raised or not whether or not it acts in conspiracy allegedly with a private party or not if the chafe the state has chosen to act within an area within its traditional authority as a sovereign state and meeting an act carried out only by the state itself act of the state within a traditional area of its purview then in fact parker immunity applies now here we've had a lot of discussion from my more parallel complex than that it actually is in terms of the law in terms of public policy in terms of society in terms of educational policy it's it it's i education and it also says in connection with that it is to provide student housing and so we have that on top of it you have and i regret to say it's been a staple of your merican college experience there's three cases involving private university hill hamilton and colgate and which challenges the two came on campus residency requirement survived and i trust will so for both of those reasons but the fact that it's in connection with providing student housing and in fact it's a traditional aspect of student housing