interest to be protected by the public charge that plans claims also fail on the merits the d h s s your adopted a definition a public charge in which it provided that individual is expected to use one of point if an individual is relying on medicaid help for health care housing and a snap for a few of them that person is looks a lot like a person who's primarily depended on government for their basic needs and given different meetings in various meetings and that quote even if there should be no effort to define the term law and instead it should be left to the discretion of the executive branch can we see that in the idea itself when congress stated that the decision was to be made in the opinion requiring at least twelve months worth of usage or you know one of these three bait you means tested benefits going to basic necessities for at least twelve months at a thirty six month period or more than twelve months at a very sick period is a public charge and that's the only question before before the court be receiving any cash benefits right if you're receiving housing medicaid and and food stamps you're pretty dependent on government benefits i would say all of your basic necessities are being and yet you would under the old rule so th are and so you're right yeah that was that was a reason why why that was or to express explanation even seagate in the rule for changing and starting to incorporate these benefits that the old rule have been too permissive in irrationally distinguished between pas benefits over time and i want to be clear that it's important to think of how the definition of a charge interacts with the framework and the factors that that are also part of the rule and also how it will work in practice obviously the public charge determination is forward looking and you have to make a prediction and you know and according to the statute that any plans of the rest of the person's life out there in the likelihood they'll be on benefits and so forth and  one in the role in the example pride in the rule reflect this no one expected you to cater to be able to say with precision you know this particular person is is going to have this income for each month of their life or are they going to use medicaid in these months and so forth  i think what the factors are designed to do is to say look if we look at this person's income and their skills and their whether they have a support from a sponsor or even whether with their age and health issues like is this a person that is going to use benefits just are on public if you are in public housing in you six months worth of snap benefits that that would be in them no no your honor i mean that is that is the definition  i mean it would have to be more than six months but it has to be twelve more than twelve months but yes i mean that is the definition i get my point only is that  so i'm not sure how many people and it actually would be considered public charges but i think moreover you know the public charge terms often is obviously only to aliens it's not one that applies to us citizens and you know aliens are are subject to all sorts of rules that u s citizens aren't including you know they have to obtain sponsors they have to agree to repay any benefits they receive they can be removed from the country in certain circumstances if they don't pay those benefits  are sort of where we stand with so this like you said earlier the supreme court there was some you know our court stated injunction other courts did not i think the th circuit actually stay the injunction or maybe on the met i think before circuit ruled on the stayed the th circuit injunctions so in february the rule went into effect last week of february i think it was it was then in effect until the last week of july i believe around the time that at that point thought along form to this that you look at their education their age their health condition there are skills whether they have a sponsor you look at all of these factors and use that to predict whether in the future they w don't have dependents they're healthy this is someone who's not likely to be found to be a public charge on the other hand if it's an older person you know maybe they don't have a good employment history you know they have a health condition you know that's going to weigh that's going to you know w that if they're entering there would have to be a prediction as to whether or not in five years they would be on these some of these benefits or a twelve month period yes your honor that's exactly right and it is for most people who are primarily affected by the school are people entering for the st con but more importantly people who are in the country more clients become to get their green card to become healthy arts and for those people they want to have ben eligible for benefits previously most most for most people now refugees and asylum might be but they're not subject to the public's article so it's only people so for the most part past benefits you see it won't be i have a factor that i'm up very often  that you know the statute itself of course says you know well someone at any time in the public tried and that kind of gets to get my point is no one expects determinations to be made with mathematical cision in terms of income and so for it's really getting at  these individuals who because of their various characteristics are unlikely to be using these benefits for prolonged periods or are they just people who might use them temporarily or over or not at all and that and so the rule is trying to distinguish between then but that's again that someone who is relying on the government for you know how care and housing or food and housing for a six month period which you know the question is is that reasonable to say that person over three years  the family the biggest category you have you have to have an affidavit essentially in this affidavit if you have the affidavit from somebody there's a rule affect you because you have the affidavit some is promising to pay back anything that any charges you might possibly themselves be you know just barely over whatever that acquirement is and you might question whether that was you know over the long term will be able to pay back in advance and so forth so i will weigh in your favor but it doesn't mean that you're automatically acquiescence you know congress has never defined the term obviously and they also have and i am i aware everest said that they thought it was primarily dependent or anything of that nature building network issue on a higher level than than i can control i thought you noted down the judge fletcher and so you got him out on her you know this seems to be happening across the board here so we're doing our best to work through it you know that i want to make that you know this would be a kind of a novel application of that that can of statutory construction given that you know congress itself has never expressed an indication that it thought there was a definition has in the past recognized that there were different definition that standards used also that you know there's obviously no supreme court case or court of appeals cases or st name that settled or even state of the definition that the plaintiffs are promoting so  really it is it would be quite a leap to conclude that contrary to the evidence and we know even if you look at the statute itself that congress has made clear that the decision has to be made in the opinion of the of the secretary of homeland security  for this rule because the idea being that a person who uses it temporarily is not suffer a lie and the agency would have to therefore come up with a new rationale to explain why a person who's using a benefit for one month is not you know considered suffer a mind and that would be quite a break from on past practice and quite a break from for how the term has been interpreted so often actually you know one way we can look at this case you know i guess what i was suggesting is that they would have to come up with an explanation for why you know that person used could be considered there is a kind of a cultural notion of what a public charge is they're not you are i don't know about the cultural notion but in the case law that we see even getting back to the s we don't see this narrow primarily depended on it i point out a couple of cases and i'm sorry for example the turner case where someone was hospitalized for two weeks that was considered sufficient we see you know i think the th circuit cited an eight hundred and ninety six report to the  some de minimus amount of benefits you know the agency or any benefit at all we're talking about three means tested benefits that are provided for basic necessities and in that go to the general the neediest individuals in the country and it's in the question only is whether that's a reasonable interpretation of someone who's not self reliant someone who can you expect him to rely on those types of basic benefits for either you know an intense period or an extended or its reasons for why it was doing so it also acknowledged the various costs that might might occur to local governments and then there might be just some role meant in state governments and he took steps to mitigate those costs by excluding certain benefits from the we have experts is that are you know they said really bad things are going to happen in the comments and i think their argument has to be that like he says he's really bad things are happening are going to happen and you didn't adequately have your you on all that but we said the government is doing it in a way that has too high just too high of a cost you know you're on i don't know i mean as this as the motions panel pointed out the fact that that a rule will have impose response to that is i understand that this is the opinion on this day order seemed to discount that but that was done before we get any briefing so i just i don't i don't really see a response that medicaid for children under twenty one and pregnant women and making clear that you know state and local efforts are covered so so that to address that issue and i think it ought that you know can obviously estimate exactly how many vaccinations might m of that right i think this goes to my kind of my nd broader point and i just i don't want to skip around just to answer just but your question for one additional moment you know all of these well it's true that if you use medicaid to get a vaccine assuming you're eligible for medicaid which most people who are subject to the public charge rule are not eligible for medicaid at the time they're applying but if you could say look i needed this vaccine one time for you know coated but i'm not going to be on medicaid that individuals who are subject to the public charge rule are not eligible for snap benefits at the time they're applying because they haven't received their green cards yet or they're you know to be admitted into the country so yes there are people who are expected to  disenroll because they're confused about the rules coverage they think they're covered but if they already have their green card you're not going to be subject to much they leave the country four hundred and eighty days so there's no reason for those people to disenroll and one thing the agency was hopeful was that i'm through your partners and for guidance that people would come to understand that they had no basis for dissing rolling in these benefits because if they are eligible for the benefits chances are there's a very high chance that they are not  subject to the public charter school so there was no reason that these individuals would be re and rolling once they understood that that they had been mistaken about the coverage which also you know lowered the potential long term public health impact of the term although they don't use the words they don't use the words primarily dependent there's a through line in how they're performing the their analysis and what they're looking for and they're all looking although they don't use these words for primary dependence i recall correctly you cite it in the us every everybody except for the maybe the state of california cited to this eight hundred and twenty eight webster's dictionary definition a person or thing committed to another's custody so i don't know how does really interesting because you know basic basic christian doctrine would be that the who the person primarily responsible for somebody spiritual welfare is not the minister right a person primarily responsible for their spiritual welfare is the is the person themselves i mean that seems to be basically christian doctrine that daniel webster or no webster would have been aware of and so i seized in that definition the explanation of what that meant there this is the person of thing committed to another's custody care management shows that somebody would be a charge even if they were primarily definition mistake or decisions around the term public charge of the time really clarify and exactly what is meant by the term public charge and even before the term is used in eternity to act there is state court decisions describing a person as a public charge being a person who is quote incompetent to maintain even themselves and i also think it's telling that in the eighty need to act public charges are her groom too with idiots and lunatics as people who are at fundamentally unable to care for themselves and there's also an understanding evidence both in the state court language and in structure of each need to act their person can still receive some public benefit without being a public charge so their ce seven circuit and she does i thought have a good job of showing that she is he provides a lot of other cases that go the other way and i think ultimately that's why the judge would in her even majority decision it up actually outcomes required that there be something specific circumstance but show that the burden of supporting the union was going to be cast upon the government and the attorney general further concluded that a healthy person in the prime of life could not ordinarily be considered a public charge parents following this decision also noted that a person can immigrant and still receive welfare and not be considered a public charge and s some support for your argument the problem is that there's other other cases then then that just shows that it's there's not a settled meeting well that's a challenge counsel is is the approach that you're taking especially the approach that judge hamilton book in the district this definition and evidence this through line of looking for primary dependence and i'll just note that the key is that my colleague cited don't actually cut against that determination so turner which was one of the pieces that you cited and there the breadwinner in that the primary income over her with likely to be incapacitated from performing any work and so again you have someone who's going to be almost totally dependent on the state for their s  ninety nine i ness again identified it as a procedural protection it didn't alter the substantive definition of the term and i also know that in the early th century there was again this understanding of the primary honest primary dependence rationale that you're talking about but i mean would you agree that somebody could be getting food stamps lot of food stamps not a little bit less a lot of food stamps  and serious public housing maybe maybe the public housing for free and medicaid so they're getting all three of those things but no cash benefits and they would not be deemed primarily they would not be deemed on the overall even though the oral sees me to be  that's my point is that it seems like that just isn't necessarily true in all cases right like if you are getting food stamps public housing and medicaid it's hard not to say that that person they're getting all of their necessities paid for by the government you case i understand but i mean that's your point is you're saying this current role in the extreme case doesn't necessarily fit so it seems like it goes both ways so i don't i don't think so your hon can see that actually administered the benefits that they didn't think that they were sufficient to form a primary basis of dependence and and that we're not we're not arguing that it's not could never be permissible to consider receipt of snap or medicaid again may it please the court enrich for california oregon pennsylvania mean in the district of columbia even if the court were to determine that the rules need a definition of public charge was permissible counsel can i ask you and i'm sorry i think i think your your colleague just feels like she's gave way the game a little bit as she just said that she's not saying that you can't take these things into account she's just saying that twelve months is too short of a time start to say i mean she didn't say how long would be allowed but if eighteen months is mean that that argument star to testing that you can't take an account that their rules couldn't properly take into account some of these men on fast benefits but as the time frame that they're talking about here before that sounds like you're really getting into the days you discretion it's saying one thing that's very important to do is see whether what the agency's conclusions about self sufficiency are and match the evidence in the minutes for the record and for instance to answer your honor previous question about whether there can be someone who is completely dependent on these three newly included benefits there's not evidence in the administrative record of that kind of complete pendens and it has between look at how defendants right like i mean they still would have to get the get the paper cable t v that have to get some cash from somewhere but in order to eat and stay in a house and have medical care that would all be paid for all of the basic necessities of life so yeah you got to get gas for your car you doctor you know so you seems to me like under that definition most people would say you are primarily the head on government that was my point and your and your answer was that that's not in the record but it seems like all simply a matter of conjecture the programs are designed with the exception of medicaid which does provide a fairly comprehensive amount of medical care snout and housing are not designed to fully supply someone with their nutritional needs or fully supply someone with their housing needs for insulation because it is to be clear if your position that if you are on food stamps maximize you can get on public housing the max amount you can get whatever that is and medicare that all three of those together person still will be primarily on the gov act correct because that person would still need some cysts substantial other assistance in order to maybe realize like what you just said is it doesn't actually disprove but just because you also need to provide for yourself doesn't mean you're not primarily you know so well and you know if you want to present right right it's a matter of degree but i would suggest that if we look if at the whether what is in the administrative record matches the agency's conclusions about self of congress about what these benefits do and don't do with respect to self sufficiency that is not reflected in the rule for example the two thousand and two farm bill which allowed non citizens children's to get snap without a waiting here and or the two thousand and ten denmark affordable care act which greatly expanded access to medicaid for working adults these show that congress didn't think of these programs as programs that on which people are primarily dependent or lacking self sufficiency but rather ways to increase nutritional access increase our health care as the th circuit noted one in four u s citizens in briefing and so it seems to me like it and i think the district courts also can relate on this rationale which is what st triggered me thinking about this so if the district courts basically seem especially towards in their opinion to say you know it's it's  modern day we're getting a lot more there's a lot more social programs ok that makes sense to me but then they implicate in the district court seem to draw from that was well then and these are really important social programs and lots of people are getting  forty percent or whatever that and so therefore we can't be taking us into account but doesn't and you just can judge the opposite implication i mean you couldn't very say you know back when we didn't have as many social programs have made more sense only take into account certain things but as we get more and more social programs we may need to change the rule to actually take those things into account since they are going to be more ways that we are going to have people being supported by the public or by the government so it seems to me it actually cuts the other way possible and i don't think that true your honor when you look at what those programs are designed by they're not designed to replace a person's ability to work and by the sounds they're designed to be supplemental you know expansion of medicaid for instance so it sounds like your arbitrary capricious argument is tied pretty tightly to a primary dependence argument is that i'm saying because you're saying this is arbitrary capricious because it isn't actually furthering the goal of making sure people are primarily the pennant but you know if we thought like the majority in in the th circuit that they that primary dependence wasn't wasn't the clear statutory meaning because if you mean then  could talk a little bit about the impacts on public health and the agency's arbitrary calculation of the cost and statement of berman's those are apt ways in which the rule was arbitrary and capricious that are completely independent of th question about how one interprets self sufficiency the record actually shows that the rule will have significant and predictable negative consequences on public health and that agency's quote unquote belief that it's going to somehow have a long term positive effect on public health simply isn't supported by the administrative record every major public health professional organization to comment on this rule in the public record offer an evidence based explanations of how the rule would for now well you know your honor when when the rule is compared to the evidence that's in the administrative record those exceptions become a lot less powerful and a lot less convincing for instance public health experts say that having medicaid in the st place in the st instance including for adults is a really important way to connect patients with axes so the fact that the rule has an exemption for federally funded vaccines but still will all understanding how the road works if you're a you're not a lawful permanent resident yet so you and you're here for your st five years you're not eligible for medicaid anyway right so like it seems to me congress has already made the decision that isn't even being challenged here that those folks shouldn't be eligible for medicaid and you're your experts were all commenting that the sky is going to fall apart but i mean congress has already done that and for many of its people right way which you know level raises the question of why because many of the people who are going to disenroll as a result of this rule even the defendants would agree there can be hundreds of thousands of people who disenroll as a result of this rule from benefits who are not actually subject to the public charge determination but we know that that is the predictable negative effect of this rule and that's part of why the agency failed to accurately calculate the cost on the state stigma  their substantial evidence in the record that they're groups of people who are just simply not counted by the agency when they estimated there is a neural net effect for instance who are certainly going to decide to withhold  to avoid medicaid for instance out of fear and confusion because they don't fully understand immigration law those kind of predictable real world consequences of the sort that the agency needed to take into account when it was coming to its conclusions and they have a material effect on the consequences of the rule both the public health impacts and the the negative cost of state and local governments because of course responding to an infectious disease outbreak as we know is in another suffix unset and the fact that the agency decided just not to even try to tabulate and even with a range that we agree that there wouldn't have been a way to come up with a precise number but there's quite a bit of evidence in the record for instance i'd point the court to the center on budget and policy priorities comment letter which has described the different cost benefit analysis th results from any decrease in the vaccination rate it would have been possible to tabulate a range of likely costs of the rule and instead of the agency simply said you know we're going to pursue our interpretation affirmation they did make some changes so i don't know it's fair to say that they were pretty good all right well but they didn't make any effort to evaluate whether those changes were going to be effective and this point that i made about how important meditated is and having a primary care doctor who can that that is what public health experts say makes a difference to whether someone gets vaccinated or not not whether the vaccine itself is subsidized by the federal government but whether people have that kind of trust in relationship to a primary care doctor that makes a huge difference and it's access to medicaid that will ensure that that happens i see my time is almost up and so just say that significance is it just means that the supreme court decided that it was on all else when it applied the state factors that it was better to keep the injunctions in abeyance but there's no additional guidance that i think that we get from the supreme court they certainly didn't have access it was a very limited review in a very quick turn around your group as with the motions panel they didn't have time to consider many of these more detail also the motions panel's decision doesn't only refers to the rule in of itself it doesn't do that act of comparing what's in there to what's in the administrative record and those are the kinds of issues that are before  that hundreds of thousands of immigrants and their family members will disenroll from public benefits due to fear of consequences of the final roll and the evidence in this record including sworn testimony declarations by public health official show that that number is actually vastly underestimated and that there was much of a much higher rate of disagreement in the ninety's after passage of her aura that immigrants disenroll from benefits at rates of twenty one to fifty four percent depending on the public then that issue and that refugees disenrolled at rates as high as sixty percent even though they remained eligible for the public benefits that were the issue there the evidence in this case shows that the real disenroll me rate is two things that occurred to me about the number one is that there's a certain amount of money that the states have to kick again sort of to go along with that money and it is only that money would be say if you have any idea how much that is and then how much of the money is just this past your money so saying the states are going to lose this money that we would have given the people i've trouble knowing like how that's an injury to the state since you won't be giving it to people so those in the money so i have on balance do you know  district court in california found that the idea that the states would sink any money in uncredible they did it did not give any weight to this assertion because it would require a ministry of changes that were it was impossible that the states would be able to make good time in order to capture any savings but under deja's own estimates which the district court found to be impossible the costs will outweigh the cost savings by hundreds of millions of dollars and that is why every single court to have considered this argument by the government has rejected it and held that the states have established article we standing here and the nd and the seven circuits have both held that the loss of federal payments which will outweigh any potential cost states will likely start here but which it did not intend to quantify and my colleague touched upon the public health harms this is a particularly significant issue that deal just itself acknowledges that the final rule will result likely indeed creased paxson asian raves and even small decreases in vaccination rates can harm the ability to develop herd immunity and this is particularly relevant right now as we are working towards the development of a cost of mitigating and treating these localized outbreaks will fall onto state who served as the insurer of last resort for many low income individuals and the cost will be significant that at the me hundred and ten dollars to administer but it costs up to one hundred and forty three thousand dollars to treat someone who has been back to with the virus l a county estimates that every single time someone impacted with measles once briefly through the l a airport the primary health care and this is also a likely result that the age as conceived it will occur each newly uninsured individuals associated with an average increase of nine hundred dollars  uncompensated care costs and these costs are likely to befall states public hospitals the public hospitals tend to serve these low income communities hospitals that are funded by the state and by county  serve low income communities and they rely just proportionately on federal medicaid funding for their funding the students will also be burdened by their residents loss of federal food and housing benefits the benefits st not for example been steady productive and it helps kids do better in school it increases graduation rates by up to eighteen percent in girls it helps people maintain employment it provides access to fresh and healthier foods it improves health outcomes it lowers infant mortality it decreases the risk of obesity and it lowers the instances of severe psychological distress the benefits are so positive in childhood that the receipt of snap benefits increases the likelihood of a door in the pena's but snap is also a gateway for other types of benefits that are now not covered by the public charge wolf but in which individuals or other medically in get to that to where you're primarily dependent even if you're not in a cast or you're that your position too that you just can't be found out and that your honor the point is is that this the public charge definition is now defined by receipt of these benefits you're actually got a lot more i think that's not right if i'm talking correctly about the benefits for all people who have teams not benefits but on the average people don't actually receive that much they receive on average of four dollars per day but that receipt of that benefit still can have a powerful impact in people's lives and they this is your earlier but i point was you have the same problem but in the end st or the or the the one thousand nine hundred and ninety nine guidance if you if you're saying that is primarily the penance but it's but you can't be primarily dependent is that this definition is so broad it incorporates so many people who are not primarily dependent on the benefits the public charge definition is now we defined as receiving these benefits in the aggregate for the for this by the length of on it then that's when you you've gotten outside the bounds of the building of that term and that's when you're an arbitrary and capricious around which i won't stray too far into that analysis but the point here is that even when the benefits are small that access to fresher and healthier foods is very significant and the snap benefits are also a canonic multiplier so for every dollar of benefit that is stand it results in a one dollar seventy nine  estimate states will also bear the brunt of mitigating the loss of housing benefits and again these housing benefits are particularly important to working families the evidence in this case shows the swine declaration that a lot of working families rely on as when they live in high cost areas and so the removal of these benefits will increase housing instability as these working families have to move from their chosen neighborhoods from their children to public public school words it will increase the prevalence of obesity in the nutrition especially for pregnant or breastfeeding women infants or children it will reduce prescription here in the evidence in this case including four in testimony shows that people are going to skip their cancer screenings they are going to miss out on preventive care they are going to they're not going to get treatment for basic chronic illnesses like hepatitis and diabetes and cancer the consequences will be severe dependent or self sufficiency is that is that but let's assume for a nd the self sufficiency is a legitimate means for the government or is not all the stuff that you just said i understand it probably supports fabric how does it not also support the idea that you've got a lot of people it sounds like that well other very nice self sufficient there d reliant on the government for all the stuff because your honor these are benefits that people can and do without and so there are many many millions of people in america who do not have access to health care but if you take people off of health care there are going to be negative consequences to that including consequences to the public health this is the reason why the nine hundred and ninety nine dollars feel guidance was put into place in the st instance that after the passage of not your honor because certainly for people at the margins there may be people at the margins that are active but for the most people for the average person who receives not benefits they can do without the four dollars a day of additional benefit but there will be consequences in doing that and that is the reason why he has instituted the field guidance in the st instance particularly the public health harms when we're in the midst of the coronavirus pandemic right now and while that fact was not before the district court the risk of the harms that we befall this country was the where the work and so everything we're just seeing out play out in sharp relief the rest of harms that the states warmed up when you have even small decreases  vaccination rates which that relationship that is created by medicaid is very important to keep the vaccination really when you see a even a small decrease in the vaccination rates then you can you will see a decrease in meant someone who is primarily dependent on the governments for support and the court can look to not just the dictionary definitions that were in place at the time but to the language that congress used just when it  the nd line of that definition which seems to me to be very revealing as to what it means when the definition about somebody being under the care of somebody that they don't need to be primarily out of the care so why did you do that why did you leave the nd part of the definition again that it's not clear how it's application in the religious context would carry over so the context of economic support means even if you get the sense that says you have to be under the care and something else or that  agreed i'm not sure if i agree with her she didn't think that were charge of the word public alone she thought it was the word public charge like that or like almost like a term of art or something but the point is you guys all made that argument so i just try to figure out why you made it a kind of left off the you know your argument is it is very clear and it's been clear since since the beginning of our country essentially but it seems like the very st document you cite for that undercuts your argument well i don't think it does and eighty eight you definitely whether or not somebody can take care of himself you have different degrees of a person's ability to take care of the whole the whole question becomes the questions being bad at all this is how much not being able to take care of yourself counts as being somebody else's chart and it seems like that definition is saying that the people in the parish or the ministers charge means that if the minister is doing some amount then and so that's if i don't see any of your definitions any of them have your definitions in your case it's like addressing that particular issue as how much i mean the whole thing is the degree of care that you need to get it if it's only five percent and you're charge of somebody even if you're getting five percent of your care then then obviously that's lots less than primarily dependent and none of these none of these make clear one way or the other separate possibly that one sentence about being the minister of charge so my i don't think that it would be fair to say that someone who receives you know i personally to a small percentage of benefits would be unable to take care and sounds about it but even if circuit and in my just learned hand so that it refers to people who would be destitute but there's also cases counsel there's also cases that say that your member there is a whole period of time when d h or not the h s but that the government's position was if you got benefits but didn't pay them back and you got to you know you had to get a three step thing you had to get a bill from the government needed pay the bill then europe or a public charge but that didn't turn out the amount of benefits you got right so that seems that seems to undercut is that this case is going both it and the affidavit that you know the argument about the affidavit and i know everybody you're on your side of the case is sort of downplay the affidavit car but it's true that if you if you the affidavit was if i have any charges including affidavit in just color cover ca if it's a cover not cash benefits to certain types of a and if you got charges for that and you didn't pay them back you you were a public charge of more or the point if you could get affidavit saying that you would be able to have somebody paid us back a century bond  congress congress implemented that and they tied that specifically to public charter how does that not support this concept that to be a public charge you have to be primary there's nothing about primary dependents in that i mean a small amount of benefits that you get if you don't have this affidavit then you still wouldn't be you still would be a public charge of that definition or so i actually think that the affidavit provision supports our understanding of the meaning of the a public charge by virtue of an reimbursed benefits each as there is that if an immigration official believes at any point in your state year you receive benefits regardless of whether or not you have a sponsor who can repay those congress intended to give then discretion to change the meaning of the term as they have changed it and i want to emphasize that this rule is absolutely transformative and i think that i think the h s agrees with i think the agreed that this rule just transforms the landscape and the numbers are sketchy but we do know that about three percent of non citizens received the type of benefits that were relevant to the public charged analysis under the old system three percent and we also know that about half half of the people born in this country at some point in their lives will obtain one of the benefits liability or tax on the public is sufficient and there's also quite a lengthy history discussing charge parents dissent and in the th circuit as well so i would point the court there for evidence that this is not a term that has a fixed meaning i'd also point out that there would have  i would make is just to talking again about this this wrote this in roman in pads and the agency did take action to you know to account for the public health effects and i would just emphasize that in rome and as i think put the plaintiffs concede is by people who are not subject to the role these are because if they're eligible for medicaid they're not subject to the public charge for all of it you'd only be eligible that you've been here for a number of years and in while the agency took action actually if you do leave you're abandoning your green card or you're considered to abandon your green card and you can use it so there are high stakes in doing that and so i think that group is quite small but but yeah those are the two could i think the larger