good morning made please the court i'm sorry the court below basically decided that a decision by the gambling control commission that applied only to one of the plaintiffs collegian jr that the mere knowledge of that decision by the other two plaintiffs started the statute of limitations clock running as to them even though it had no effect on them they were not parties to it in any way they simply knew about it and if we think about how unworkable that could be if i'm another wife susie according to this decision if it's a pell my mere knowledge that there was a decision against collegian jr would start my search statute of limitations clock running even though i might not even have an investment opportunity until two and a half years from the time that i knew about collegian junior's decision there was no impact on the on flint and collegian sr they weren't part of this decision on that and all that brings me to the question of whether they have standing the and if they were not part of the decision then how do they have standing to the challenge to deceive well the standing was each and every time that they wanted to invest and we've alleged a number of those in our complaint they were prohibited from doing so because they would lose their current license that meant that they were actually injured only when they had to pass up an actual investment opportunity and in addition every two years when they had t certify to the gaming commission that they had passed up all opportunities to invest that's when they were actually injured and so basically what the court below has done and what the state is claiming is that simply knowledge of somebody else's application here collegian junior is an injury to you there is no actual injury to either of them now if you want to apply the problem if there is no actual injury to them then they don't have standing well if the act if the actual injury is based on this particular ruling by the board  court below ruled that they were for purposes of running the statute of limitations their first injury came when they had to pass up their first investment opportunity and we've listed each one of those not they're not the can are not it they're not parties to this case no the cut of the court below said the statute ran against them merely because they knew about a decision on the other plaintiff on jr and what i'm saying is that the statute starts to run when they are actually injured so we alleged in our complaint a number of times when they had to pass up specific opportunities each one of those was within the two year limit and and according to the court below mere knowledge of the adverse ruling against all together in the sense that there is one complaint rather clear three separate sets of facts collegian jr is his statute hasn't run because of a couple of reasons number one he passed up a number of deals number two in the disciplinary hearing against him the court imposed a five year injunction imposing this statute that doesn't run until june of this year and so this said and mounted although that if you have an injunction it's timely any time during that injunction so he it's timely has to him it's timely as to collegian sr and to flip it because they continually are passing up deals within the statute of limitations each of which we pled in our amended complaint in addition every two years there is a renewal process and so they're injured every two years in the renewable because they have to certify that they've passed up any investment opportunities in order to keep their license how for me ask you whether or he didn't appeal this is a court decision these are separate and discrete these are separate and discrete actions as to him they always are but if you have a state court decision that's been finalized you come to the federal court that is what we're reviewing here that's the statute granted i'm asking you a different question i'm not asking you a step to limit taishan question i'm asking you whether or not the feel you to appeal the agency decisions to the state court means that your balance by those decisions now and can't really negate those with them he's not appealing that decision here that decision here was imposed he is challenging the constitutionality of the statute on its face he is not challenging that decision here this case is about challenging the facial constitutional validity of the statute was that issue able to be raised in the state court it could have been but it flint and collegian sr they clearly are in the statute of limitations the decision against jr had nothing to do with them and even under sheer which is the case that the state relies on sheer required and actual injury to the individual not just knowledge that the statute existed in fact this court went out of its way to point out that the lawyer in shear knew about all the rules dis rules and everything else but it wasn't until there was actually a decision against her in the state court that the statute started to run and so my point is here the court below says that the decision against jr started the statute running against the other two that decision did not actually harm the other two sheer requires actual harm and so i was very impressed  your brief your development the palmer case and my question to you is are palmer and sheer in consists in the problem being that palmer was seventh circuit and sheer is one of our cases well and i think i think that's another issue valid issue is can there ever be a statute of limitations on a facial constitutional challenge that that's a different issue and we raised that issue obviously as well i thought it was a relevant issue it is a very relevant issue we have more of the one brown for saying there should be a reversal number one is there should be no statute of limitations on a facial challenge of constitutionality which we did hear number two even under sheer there wasn't an actual violation or injury if you will to collegian sr and flynt merely because of a decision that only applied to junior bouquet but palmer talks about a continuing violation yes and we have that we have that seven circuit given shear can we import that theory in this case well i think you can i and here's here's the reason number one we're not inconsistent with share because there's no actual injury here so share supports us number two the facial issue of a chilling effect statute you notice that in the analysis in the past when they talked about facial challenges and no statute of limitations apply they talked about cases where there was a continuing effect if you will a chilling effect and there were first amendment involved in there but here we have a chilling effect on the commerce clause because this statute basically prohibits a current licensee from in any way getting into a lawful legal investment in another enterprise and so for that reason i think that we can say that under sheer will cheer could be limited socially to you need an actual injury and there wasn't one here because junior's decision did not actually injure sr or flip the injuries that you are talking about with respect to those clients are the inability to refrain from engaging in transactions that they would have been they have to certified that they've not invested in order to keep their current license so that's an impact on them and an injury because now they have to pass up a lawful clearly legal just a product of junior's decision has nothing to do with that it's the statute that requires that i know it's when it's time for bottle council i'm sorry did you want to save this one and if i could so here what i'm saying is this i think several grounds number one there should not be a stamp limitations on on a facial challenge especially where there's a continuing if you will activity which there is here number two there was no actual injury sheer requires that the fact of the decision against jr had no actual impact or injury on the other two they simply had knowledge that his decision occurred and if you think about this anybody any other licensee who read about the decision on jr the clock would run and that's basically what the decision says because it says that the other two flint sr simply had knowledge of his decision and that made the clock start to run sheer requires an actual injury and we don't have that until they invest and we listed a number of the investments they had to pass every one of them is within the statute of limitations now three down to the minute  interpretation of the statutes by the commission but where there is a facial challenge or an as applied challenge share because he is binding precedent in the circuit that bars the licenses challenge second the licensee in paragraph seventy three of the first a minute complaint and that's at page ninety one of the record that the commission decisions were the determinative factor in causing their alleged injuries and that all three  licenses now the the any allege injury caused by the license renewal certification as licensees have argued and that injury is not alleged in the amended complaint is based on the statutory interpretation in the commission's decisions is an inevitable consequence of those decisions and is a continuing impact of those decisions there is no continuing violation because there is no new allegedly unconstitutional government act causing a new injury and restarting the statute limitations you know i'm fine i'm just speaking for me but i find this case very confusing  they want to make investments that the law says they can't me that an oversimplification but it's it appears that they had a difficult all three of licensees had a different interpretation of what the statutes would allow in terms of investments and out of state can see in those then the commission determined was the interpretation of the statues as decided by the commission in those commission decisions from june two thousand and fourteen will actually they're merely administrative law decisions inter breeding state law and imposing penalties for the violation of state law so so what is the import of the failure to appeal goals decisions w appeal the commission's decision about the other two claims while the other two planets that the decision of the commission decisions were not directly applied to them but again we go back we have to look at paragraph seventy three of their first minute complaint that's again page  ninety one of the record where they admitted that the commission decisions were the dirt turman a factor in causing their injuries and we have to accept the the well plain facts in this that rule twelve six most of the here is because the opposing counsel keeps saying that for the other two plaintiffs there is no actual injury and to me that means there is no standing still i don't get how we keep them in the case if he can see that there is no actual injury that's why i was asking the questions about stand yes when we get your response to that yes we would agree your honor to but again we do look at the facts as played in paragraph seventy three of the first minute complaint where they say that their injuries it was in the nature of discouragement  does the interpretation by the commission in those decisions discourage them from what they had interpreted the statutes to allow them to do which is be investment in the out of state casinos so it was yet damages for the so you can  statute to be enforced against understand they have not tested this is that the other two appellants have not tested the statute in a way that mr collegian jr had and was subject to the to the commission decision but if they tested then they are subject to all of the powers that the commission can impose on them here including denial of their real renewal of their license and all of that also isn't that irrelevant whether they tested it or some time during the two year period then other words they were they were given an opportunity to make an investment which the statute would prohibit and once that occurred they have a cause of action is there what's wrong with that well they the injury that they have alleged is just discouragement from entry into these business deals that they allege that they had really has nothing to do with what happened of collegian jr the point is that the statute prohibits them from making this kind of an investment they had an opportunity to invest and they had to decline it because they would be injured if they were to pursue ok so i think in this is that it seems to me this is a continuing violation situation the continuing harm well our position and it's  continuing impact of the commission's decisions from june two thousand and fourteen the nox of the davis case in the circuit is instructive in this regard where you had a decision of suspending an attorney from visitation unconstitutional and he's making a facial challenge to the statute do you disagree with that we just agree that it's a facial challenge to the statute actually we we our position is that it's the interpretation of the statute by the commission in those two decisions and june twenty fourth that was different from the interpretation that the appellant's had as demonstrated in the record by their support for section thousand eight five eight point five when it was inactive in two thousand and seven they did not think it was unconstitutional at the time they supported as well under your theory if we were dealing with collegian jr alone perhaps that might make sense but the other two were not directly affected were they not well again we have to accept the facts as pled in their first amended complaint and when we look at paragraph seventy three again and at page ninety one of the record  the lies you have argued that with respect to all three appellants all three licensees that that those commission decisions from june two thousand and fourteen were the determinative factor in discouraging them from these investments and causing their injury  would you comment on this or cambridge the argument about the palmer case how do you look at palmer well suit in the face of repeated unconstitutional acts that we do not have any separate unconstitutional acts here the argument made with regard  biannual license for a new all application form is merely a reporting requirement the form has a question asking if you have if the license applicant or the license renewal applicant has increased in investment in and out of state  casino or has or has a new investment in out of state because you know that would just provide notice to the bureau of gambling the trial to investigate that investment to see if it's in compliance with the law and again that still relates back to the commission decisions and that interpretation that the appellant's disagreement is no that's something that could be handled on remand to the district court i mean the problem here is that this is a statute of limitations issues statute of limitations appeal if we resolve that the statute of limitations on long lines of pommery goes back and presumably the court can then deal with whether there's an injury or not seventy three of their first amended complaint they they admitted that those commission decisions were the determinative factor in causing them not to enter into these business deals that they describe still having trouble with this let's let me i don't like hypotheticals but let me give you and i have a i'd like to engage in a delivery business and i've got a bicycle that has wheels this big and then there's a decision that says that the bicycles with wheels that  depriving me of something or other it's unconstitutional to not let the make my deliveries with my bicycle that has wheels to spot why would that be barred by why would there be a statute of limitations on that if all i want is for the future to ride my bicycle well if it's applied to the actual plaintiff then that would be more akin to the situation with mr collegia and this is so we have to apply this standard and the standard for their crew of the statue of limitations would be when the plaintiffs knew or had reason to know of their alleged injury now in this case we have an undisputed it's an undisputed fact that the plaintiffs or actually had actual knowledge because they did not contest our argument that had actual knowledge of the commission decisions and their impact causing their their alleged injuries based on their admission in paragraph seventy three of the first minute complaint and also their failure to to controvert arguments that they had knowledge of that decision the cause there that they admitted that a lot of the lines of judge a scandalous question why isn't each time that they are prevented from doing what they would like to do continue in violation well that's that's because it's merely the inevitable inevitable consequence of the commission's decisions and the interpretation of the statutes and body there and it's just the continuing impact just just like the knox of the davis where they continue to question fact that the plaintiff in knox had a bit of a stronger case than than than this point just had we believe because the plaintiff in knox repeatedly requested to do to do to visit new  clients in prison and each time the department of corrections rejected that that request that did not trigger a new accrual day for the statue of limitations or related back to original suspension decision because it was the same so if i can clarify the standing issue here's that for the statute to run there must be in a vent that actually causes an injury the court below said that was the decision against junior legislative history that's part of this record we thought the statute was going to be repealed but once that decision came into place we filed that was the only thing it had to do it's not the decision it's the law that we're challenging not his decision on junior that's just said look it's not going to get repealed let's file that's all that was a bow and so what i'm saying here is you need to have an injury it's the court below said it was junior juniors had nothing to do with the other two defendants at all of the other two plaintiffs at all so and as far as the revenue what did you allege the injury to   the complaint in the record where is that it would be i believe one sixty one is the record reference for the complaint where we made all of those allegations  of me here but i but your honor it's there are several deals alleged that we passed on in fifteen and sixteen in twenty fifteen and twenty sixteen plus the renewal and i say on the renewal we briefed it's they briefed it and the judge ruled on it they're claiming three new all is a product of junior's decision it's not at all it's a product of the statute the statute says you must say that you didn't engage in any investments in order to have your current licens review renewed and each time they do that every two years that enforces that statute on us stops us from investing and that is not a product of junior's decision that's a product of the statute so each one of the deals that we passed in fifteen and sixteen are our injuries and each renewable