them elizabeth leahy on behalf of the new hampshire attorney general joseph oster i'd like to focus first on the imminency of injury argument specifically the fact that there's no standing because there's no existing prescription as well as a few points about the pla pretty creative and standing theory as well as their unbridled discretion the plaintiffs can have a preexisting standing injury because they currently do not face an existing prescription they are free today first i would disagree that that is analogous to what is happening here in that circumstance the law has already passed through the legislature has already been signed by the governor and it is guaranteed to go into effect as written on a particular date so on a particular da the chill needs to be based on the fear that the statute will be enforced against the particular that's the standard that was unseeded in and that's the standard that this court has adopted what he's arguing with the defense arguing for is effectively a creed creation standing that i would disagree with that representation they have throughout this the course of this litigation including when there was a stay the parties periodic we submitted status reports and in each of those status reports they indicated that they continue to engage in conduct that they didn't change their conduct i anticipate my opponents response to that would be they were protected by this day and that the fact that it w and that in the city intended to put up a zone that we would notify the court but even after those protections have gone away it's my understanding that they've continued to engage in conduct outside the facilities there's nothing in the record to suggest one that they have stopped or that they've changed and that even if there was however that is not enough to get them standing that the change in their behavior would need to be driven by an objective really reasonable fear and a fear of a subjective fear a chill is insufficient and so here there is no objective fear that they will be subject to criminal state what it does is authorizes the creation so to conduct the analysis in the first you need to assume that there's a problem that if the syllogism used the remedy second you need to assume that the facility would remedy that problem with the zone as opposed to any other means such as an injunction enforcing trespass statutes or disorderly conduct statutes even if you drive those assumptions you would still need to assume one what the zone would look like how big it is where it's it doesn't matter in the framework that exists the fear has to be a fear that an existing prescription will be in force against the plaintiff here there is no existing prescription what the plaintiffs to created and secondarily that it will be enforced against them and then as a second step the court would also have to by sitting in this particular case ignore the policy considerations behind the recognition of the standing in the first place which is primarily quoting  plaintiff in the position where they're faced with the hobson's choice of speaking and risking substantial opt in criminal penalty for not speaking and they're going their rights and here there is no criminal consequence the consequences a written warning and at that time the plaintiffs could go to court seek a temporary restraining order and the district court could if necessary deal with it quickly prior to reaching the merits and the susan b anthony in this case suggests that some criminal element to it to the challenge is significant because they don't reach the question about whether a purely administrative penalty is sufficient to find that because this is a criminal and administrative penalty that's a sufficient to warrant a chill and here we have less than the administrative penalty and no criminal component and then in addition to those additional policy considerations here there's no threat of enforcement in fact we have disavowal and so if the court is going to recognize disavowal in the context of disavowing an intention to enforce an existing prescription it should also give way to the fact that the parties who could create these zones she says that she would not i think she would not instruct or guide or her people within her passivity to create zones given the changes in the legal landscape as a result of the cull and all of those are tied to