your honor i think i think it's i don't think it's a subject matter jurisdiction issue i think it's a matter where the claim just kind of fails as a matter of law i think it's another one of those reasons and i think the court could better would just reject think it's a subject matter jurisdiction question i think you know i agree with you on the evidence that seemed to be required by the district court it least it applied to individual horniness was pretty sparse i do recall that there was negligence beyond that and he also didn't seem to consider the prior records criminal records or what have you with any of the applicant for purposes of determining whether or not applaud responses here if it does not comply with constitutional standards obviously the district court proceeded on a very very slipped my mind and so i think it did end up meaning or too broadly certainly certainly doing up on the field use question wasn't it incumbent upon the district court very specific findings with respect to each sure that the difficult have to probe the government's response much once the scene of the government actually responded in a way which however we need characterize our view of it or whoever made the profession matter have disagreements with it it can't be cla deliberate indifference because that's on par with criminal recklessness i don't know that part quite so much hoping on the side but i do think to grant that kind if you can believe i don't think you can kind of do the blanket the blanket failure to consider whether i think those are mostly addressing harm to the community addressing things like that i don't think i don't think i can recall a presentation on exactly that point would you agree that that should be an essential honor i don't believe we did actually regularize anything like that our understanding is that they are essentially out on supervised release by ice and so they are subject to whatever check in or other the ice has the liberty to pick them up again then you are well i would argue they are not unless they somehow violate their conditions or committed another offense and reporting to both humans to all check and to fight and maybe i'm missing something but this does not seem to be clear from the answer i'm hearing i'm not sure what mr stewart knows i don't know whether he's checked in with his with his eyes to know exactly what's going on my understanding is there is it on the secured bail i guess i mean it especially with the folks that were subject to mandatory detention some o i guess i'm wondering why you wouldn't be concerned with the current procedural state of the case that you're calling as least a risk of your subject to being put back in the same about the conditions of confinement what's happening in the detention facilities in the individual circumstances of the system is not only the medical condition but also earlier the criminal history so i exactly what should have happened here so i mean let me answer that one the lens back and giving a little bit of context because frankly what what's before this court is the record as it existed before the this is the very front end of the pandemic and literally what we're seeing on the news is body that is coming out of overcrowded hospitals in new york and milan and madrid all of the sudden people are being ordered to stay at home governor wolf on april the st ordered stay at home for the tire commonwealth of pennsylvania there was one reason for doing that and that was to keep people separately social distancing there's no vaccine there's no cure and so people could catch this was also the nation that had come out by that point that there are people for people in this category is fifteen percent and you have to keep it right for you we have to figure out who those people all right is and sort of step one identifying the high risk pool which which which we did well  not i'm not playing doctor here what i'm suggesting is didn't need to be some investigation as to you know he's a young guys twenty is you know if he didn't have to be some on april th and nonetheless the judge looked at those facts viewed those facts mentions that in the opinion while he said he applied the reconsideration standard in fact  chance to show up and say wait a minute there might be some difference here right so so here so that the court considers exactly what happened much of the argument that we hear from the government today that we see in their belief that the court was certain disregarded that or didn't appreciate the all factual arguments and the standard good this court is that they're that the record has to be absolutely devoid of any and if the court compares the beliefs that was filed in hope by the government with the arguments and reach that were filed in back or we go earlier it's the same argument with the same arguments we have today the legal at each point it does not because the risk is going to be quantified upon the condition someone suffers in  clustered and what what happens is once the virus gets then that blows up and then and things are out of control and what's in the records before the district judge in its case in that the cool factor  and in the news at the same time you see numbers like gerson cook county jail going from a planned fall to hundreds that's the backdrop on which the district court was considering this case and and that the game here is that if that virus gets in because they're not social distancing because you don't have all these risk mitigation measures maybe there are some masks maybe there are deliberate indifference applies at all i mean that's that's sharky which came out less than a year ago as pretrial detainees immigration detainees are subject to the same standard as the trial detainees neither one of them can be punished and so in fact the deliberate indifference standard doesn't apply so the question is whether or not these conditions are somehow juden the related government ensures the government's interest here  these civil immigration detainees appear at their immigration hearings or whether this is excessive and what we have is you hear about emergency proceedings and injunctions and i remember yeah but nobody's going to live or die in this case in this case they are right that's clearly the risk is potential but one of the things that i'm wrestling with is when i look at the district court's opinion that her political twenty seven the judge looked at the records of the individuals so what should happen was put into detention by ice has two prior convictions for st degree mur you have to let him out because if this guy gets it on my hypothetical he's really i risk of dying but his record also shows that he's a tremendous danger to the public well let's even let's make it even more stark let's say that the prior convictions for st degree murder were a domestic violence and the choice is to keep him in this facility where he might get closer than d look on the facts there is no deliberate difference there is no peter under that that prohibited by the constitution so i think it is your argument that you can't be deliberately indifferent you can't punish people as long as you're trying and that seems to this case but of the issues presented by cases of this nature and i will indulge myself in one observation with respect to the performance of the district courts circuit wide i am very proud of the district judges who have conferred circuit in their availability and the speed with which they have entertained them patients of this nature