good morning may please the court my name is brian kane i'm a deputy attorney general i'm here on behalf of vita hos attorney general lawrence boston and idaho secretary of state venue serves this case as fort before i begin i like and serve two minutes first turn to the secretary of state's argument for dismissal based on the eleventh amendment under under the under ex parte young the the courts have said that there must be a fairly direct connection between the official suit and enforcement of the statute the second inquiry is whether or not there's a threat of enforcement which incorporates into it general article three principles which include the triad of injury impact well i think that that in this case for motive action there has to be some sort of harm that would be created and the secretary of state simply can't take any final step that would create a harm the most of the secretar prosecute ok let's talk about the attorney general because i think that that is where the real part of the expression meat and potatoes of this argument is this case is critical at this point because i think that the court is  facing a circumstance where the state quarters of idaho as well as the attorney general are interpreted a lot in one direction and the federal court is interpreted in a lot and the opposite direction and so we were confronted with a case where the state says we don't think the attorney general has the start as reflected in state the summer the latest pronouncement of the idaho supreme court on the authority of the attorney general and the federal court is saying well  i think we think the country general does have these abilities to come in and be the primary force with authority and the best way to sum this up is to look at this in terms of a t r o or an injunction if an injunction is issued against the attorney general with not restrict the county prosecutors because the county prosecutors have their own autonomous decision making authority now if we were first that if we issue an injunction or t r o against the county prosecutors connection between the attorney general and the likely enforcement of this law as required under ex parte young we don't even meet the first threshold by saying we've sued the state officer who has a fairly direct connection t in order to say that to make that argument i think we get into the much broader question of this panel being bound by the planned parenthood decision and i think that if you look closely at the discussion of the eleventh amendment in relation to the if you're an attorney general and planned parenthood the court never fully resolved that issue and if you look at page nine twenty of planned parenthood it's certainly need not decide if the two are proper defendants because the courts found the fundamental problems with the underlying statute person in front of them in the in the form of the prosecutor and struck the statute down without finally resolving the issue of a levels the men in immunity related to the attorney general and so based on that we're now confronted with the situation it end and i would i would i would argue that the the finding in planned parenthood is merely dicta with regard to the attorney general duties and i say that for two reasons one is one is that the court said said it's much with been planned parenthood by saying they're not going to finally decide that issue within the parameters of case the only argument presented was on the merits of the statute not on the eleventh amendment the panel thought strictly limited the discussion from that that issue once you the the the attorney general significantly in state the summer the attorney general that the court found that there was a defect because the attorney general did not appear before having a motion made by the prosecutor in order entered by the court to appear and in those terms the attorney general simply can't show up it's more akin to the fallacious shift between the attorney general and the district attorneys in oregon for example or in my remaining time for  in planned parenthood and the statute invoked in planned discussed and planned parenthood which says that the assistance power is enough is controlling your state versus summer is concerned about  two specific unfortunate provisions in the statutes here stand south so the the argument for the defendants really comes down to their second contention that about and so we think it's very clear that you out of one court is saying that the issues right from the standing imminent are not hard over the next party young equation which means no jurisdiction to look at the article three and preventable requirements that apply whereas in this context you have the plaintiff that says there's a statute aimed directly at my first amendment activity and in order political action committee case other ambiguously holes that in that context there is no requirement of showing that any sort of prosecution is imminent because of course it isn't because what you're doing is changing your if i could address travers question regarding planned parenthood at the outset and this specifically and how it regards this whether or not planned parenthood conclusively determine the issue of the scope of the attorney general started within the state of will they have to sue every county to get an injunction i don't think so i think that in practical terms of jurisprudence show that if you get an injunction and a statute is struck down which is the ultimate goal that they're they're shooting for here then it would apply statewide it's a statue to struck down and so i don't think that you need to necessarily i mean if you get a new