writers for the trim and acted by jurors in two thousand and eleven substantially impaired appellants writes under two thousand for a contract known as the participation and in violation of the contract clause the participation agreement was a forty year contract between the new jersey sports necessary had a reasonable and the courts have actually placed a specific test on what it means to be necessary what it means to be necessary is that they didn't consider the pairing legislation on are with other options mean in making progress requirements says that you basically have to go forth and go with one of these things within a year with makes business sense or not this is where you're agreement you're trying to counteract recognize does it say you have to open a new year i mean that's why the  in the recent commission regulations provides a runoff so that after the first making progress showing then you have to come back in any year and for that first came with the making progress showing you have agreed that instead of where they could've gone is they could have all shared interests in the fifteen ot wus and split the income in the expenses in the revenues but would they decide to do was to allocate the ocean w so that each allows the state and this was in the governor's conditional veto message this is the only reason the rye this bill passes they put this exception and to allow the authority to evade the for clients could have just nothing for thirty nine years and to the extent the state tried to glue them into action in year thirty two that that would impair your contract hypothetically they could have open none that's not what happened and then the legislature would have had the ability to either issue legislation that was not a substantial impediment didn't violate the contract clause or could've complied with the contracts to develop additional locations an opportunity needs for his racing we're betting on horses to support the the industry which we everybody agrees were suffering financially so they is party to the contract yes strict scrutiny then necessarily required absolutely not listen to what's going on here who is the same for purpose in this case who was sued in this ca to enhance an industry a regulated industry in our state because it's got economic value so isn't that a demonstration of the state's interests he said in his way but that's where you could say with any legislation  as i understand it is if we're using heightened scrutiny necessary and reasonable we need to send it back for the district will first of all we obviously don't think that that heightened scrutiny should apply obviously that is of for also rory because in fact they sat on their rights they sat on these valuable  fair way in this case would be engaging in proprietary activities in its contracts that doesn't mean that the contract was the supply in fact in the energy reserves case i think that both parties cited that the the court said that when a state enters into a market don't get paid for that by the way the person's organization doesn't open and they get paid out by the recent commission to what they call a well suited entity and there's some monies that come in but they don't come to us but they will see that any there's no requirement in the statute that they need deadlines or that what those regulations look like and really your clients can comply with the radio usually thing that's standing between us and the statutory for a picture is the administrative forbearance stay yes and they they can remove that and depending on what they do you know they could have they can impose actually more likely making progress and we submit we're still impaired by the fact that we have to make progress and are subject to all these deadlines but as far as the furniture you know when that would occur i will depend on what's in those benchmark