let's let everyone get settled legislators they're not parties to the the requirement that they provide evidence to not be reviewed after final judgment because they will not stand the new appeal of the final good look good must be reviewed now or not at all it was bound to do in the hubbard case the plaintiffs say there is no dura sticks in here because those cases apply only to the actual production of the documents themselves and that you are not  do to find the documents and prepare a well they cannot do not explain why relief should be available only at the final step of the process and indeed the itself provides evidence which we say is privileged if constituents smith writes to senator jones about the airport and that is reviewed that is included in the wow even if you can't get to the letter from senator jones you can start question i don't want to say much about the jefferson community case it is thoroughly discussed in our brief and i think you have a better i do idea than i do whether it's victim our our home being we think those distinctions have not been up to hell with the courts have said if it's a legislative if it's a legislative act at whatever level it's privilege so i simply say that question was not considered in jefferson community and it's been carefully discussed every time it's come up i think it should be carefully discussed before you conclude that is wise for the state legislators but again even if everything and half or some community is homing even if you follow the language in carette is the carry it does not resolve the two issues in this case and the st is whether the reasons for passing legislation are privileged in the sense that legislators cannot be compelled to disclose them that's the language from jefferson community but i think the panel was saying it wasn't deciding it was saying we assume that's true you still lose arlington heights equal protection cases legislatures motives are rollo relevance isn't the question here the question the whole point of a privilege is to keep you from getting avon's that is relevant if it wasn't relevant you never get to the proof which question arlington heights sans that motivation is relevant but it also says that only an extraordinary instances with legislators required to provide evidence on that and that it's generally a privilege there is not a case anywhere that says legislators can be held to provide evidence of their motives for us in the well off there used to be it was b be required to disclose his thought processes the court upheld the prevailing thought process as it seems to me is broader than modals if you can't get thought processes you can't get promoted so there is no case anywhere that allows them certainly not never through community not career was not rodriguez where they didn't get evidence of motive either there is no case anywhere that says you can get evidence of motive  and most recently the weak case in the night circuit which is very close to this one to a smith there the question in that case was whether the city council of los angeles racially discriminated in a redistricting end racial discrimination like arlington heights in the night circuit specifically how this is not one of those extraordinary instances where you're entitled to get evidence of motive they didn't allow it it shouldn't be allowed here this court should not be the st court of appeals and right now the only court that would allow evidence of motive i want to move on to the other question in the case which is rd party communications and that's one where we do not have controlling authority from the screen court we don't have control in the florida from this court we don't have much authority anywhere but your possession doesn't really make much common sense that communications those of already been disclosed outside persons can be perfectly i mean there's a lot of case law on that and in an attorney client privilege i know that's not what we're dealing with here so just t explain to us why we should feel comfortable with your position that disclosed matters nevertheless aren't supposed to be disclosed there is a difference between disclosure and the initial conversation i been a communication and we've shown it to a non party to the communication the question here is the protected nature of the communications in the st place if a constituent calls the congressman or a member of the way this wager and says we i want to do something i want this is my opinion this is what i'd like you to do that's not a disclosure that's a communication like a man talking do is why for a and it turned out that the city council members had confirmed before the vote with outsiders including local party officials and the nd circuit says it doesn't matter who you confer with your and i don't have to confirm with people before you vote if it's a conference that you're using to inform a way just wait it out it's a privilege conference and it need not be disclosed and it cannot form the basis of why ability the th circuit casey miller again  congressman not to a state legislator but the th circuit miller took that and said if there is a unity here there's privilege here the privilege is commensurate with the immunity they wanted to know where the congressman had gotten information and the th circuit said the congressman doesn't have to tell you it is important for congressmen and for state legislators to have information we want to encourage that constituents have a st amendment right to communicate with their representatives we don't want to discourage that whistleblowers may want to come to representatives in order to provide information in support of reform we don't want to discourage back and if those people know that their communications will be revealed in courtrooms and they themselves may be called to testify those sources of information that was the reason and i hope you're going to or were not to that point here yet the hubbard case but that's a st amendment case we have to work through whether that law would apply to what we're dealing with here but if we get to where you're not completely privilege from the revelation of all  information we're far from from that we haven't dealt with that it does seem to me that a provisional could deal with it from your viewpoint for nothing privilege would be with you and if it's so scant that the other side wants to information you still have two problems one of which is practical the point of the privilege is to keep legislators from being diverted from their duties and in modern discovery you are more diverted but the hubbard case even though it's a st amendment case it is as close as you can get to all fours with this case because the issue in hubbard was you had the right to do this or you may have had the right to do this but the point of saying he did it with evil in your heart and so we're in title to a privilege and to further discovery so we can determine whether you have evil in your heart that's the th amendment claim here nobody says the state lacked power to reconstruct a regional airport or you or you so do you take the position that you should not have to produce logs of anything that you say is privileged in this case your documents that you're never going to be required to produce because they're all protected as motive there may be a case somewhere where it's a different constitutional question and it's not boding so has had as has the possibility been explored of any camera view of the privileged documents the possibility of a camera view is not yet been explored because we haven't gotten to that point but you still have the burden question that your supposed we've still got a big amount these are electronic documents this is not just a question of old fashioned paper files it's not a lot of work what if your argument much of your argument strikes me is depend on the characterization of the absolute privilege of the evidence sought to be protected and we know that that's mobile and in this case motive is very important because one of the better the federal claim here is an equal protection clause that it is picking up a little bit  difference between that and when you tell me that you're looking for racial purposes that  that's relevant getting back to mr asses point that you have the right to get in the way you're now talking about so what is your best case that your entire order to get from the legislate on we're not talking yet about putting them on the stand you just waste a question that really segues into the nd factor that the district court analyzed in looking at the qualified nature of the privilege and that was the of dale ability of other smith you may recall that we were before your honor in november in houston own issue that was the subject of a petition for writ of mandamus as to whether we were in title to the poems the governor's chief of communications to show that there were reason is not the true reason that there was some type of discriminatory animists yawners i think it's easy to forget that this particular p t o is actually about argument is that the court will look at the factors that the district court review in determining whether or not the facts of this  morning although none of the defendants have moved to dismiss the underlying case for want of subject matter jurisdiction and party of legislative or sore before the court today have questioned the standing of the individual airport commissioners to assert their federal constitutional challenges to the takeover we do not dispute that this court can take up this question but the allegations of the complaint are plainly sufficient to establish their standing it's important to remember that this case remains that the pleadings staged therefore as the supreme court has recognized in the loop on general factual allegations of injury resulting from the defendant's conduct may suffice and in the bennett case the high court found that the lack of specific allegations of injury was not fatal because it was easy to presume specific facts under which the petitioners would be injured relying on these decisions this court has framed the a pluggable test this way that the pleadings stage the court will not dismiss for lack of standing if the court can reasonably infer from the plaintiff's general allegations that he has suffered an injury in fact traceable to the challenge conduct that can be read dressed by a ruling in his favor the complaint in this case easily and it's cast of the it's not a wedge in so many words the court can and easily should draw the inference from the complaint that the individual airport commissioners will lose their jobs if senate bill two thousand one hundred and sixty two is permitted to take effect this consequence flows inevitably from the legislature is a limit nation and replacement of the jackson municipal airport authority so it follows automatically that the implementation of this legislation would have concrete particularized and immediate impact on the airport commissioners and because this resolve follows inevitably from the implementation of the statute there's no issue of traceability and because the consequences could be avoided were the court to enjoying implementation of the bill there's obviously no issue of redress ability now it is true that the commissioners are volunteers but that does not mean that the loss of their jobs is the sufficient to confer standing there are legions of cases most of them arise in the context of st amendment retaliation claims in which the courts of appeals have recognize that when volunteers lose their jobs for unconstitutional reasons they can plead sufficient injury in fact the th circuit has articulated why this is so in a very powerful way in the highland case here's what the th circuit said as a government volunteer a person gains valuable experience and education in public administration the opportunity to serve as a volunteer is also important because it provides an individual the satisfaction of making a contribution or giving something back to society several years ago the st circuit canvass the law on this area and showed that the approach taken by the st circuit nd circuit rd circuit th circuit  circuit and th circuit at least when state law treats volunteers as public employees follows this approach and mississippi does volunteer public officials likely commissioners of the jackson municipal airport authority as public employees for various purposes let me give you a few examples the statutory immunity statute applies to any appointed official whether with or without compensation the statute applies to any individual appointed to a position in local government whether compensated or not the ethics statute of mississippi applies to any individual who receive expenses paid as the commissioners do in jackson for their public work no court of appeals this is what the st circuit observed of the bargain case no heard of appeals has held that the loss of a volunteer terri position under search such circumstances does not constitute an injury and fax officials to confer standing now even if none of the plaintiffs here has a right to be the commissioner at their jobs as commissioners cannot be taken away on the basis of race without giving rise to an injury if in fact that sufficient to allow them to bring an action under section one thousand nine hundred and eighty three that's the case that you legislative war what you couldn't get in rodriguez is the actual deliberations of the web disclosure of individual legislators that took place outside that independent commission  after the proposed redistricting plan reached before the legislature that's their best case and it says they can't get what they're working for so that makes the the privilege was a useless waste of time and tenney says congress and eight hundred and eighty s eight hundred and seventy one was worried about a waste of time for legislators and nine hundred and eighty three cases to take about them i think you were addressing the question of whether whether dissuad much on what might be relevant in this case since i'm not defending that's up to the governor and the attorney general i'm here simply to assert privilege and we have not heard a word that suggests that they're looking for anything motive and there is not a case that says they can get i will say a little bit about standing and then i'll sit down i'm glad flyaway to find out what plaintiffs think their standing is this is now a job  nd circuit says you still can't get the communications within the legislative body are with outsiders before you got to the way this way but it's not the case they play i don't understand that you are supposed to read things broadway and generous wait to see if you can come up with a claim but you can't read this complaint and find a job protection claim in it they told you what their injury was they're suing not because they owe their jobs they're suing these taxpayers and citizens and i think they've got class representation language in there that's never come up but what the senate is here is there reiterate effective and meaningful participation in before you can order us to do anything before the district court in order is to do everything anything that has the determinant of jurisdiction but determination has never been made the argument here is contrary to their plate and should not be accepted a standing one who we are entitled we we think we ought to have it both on standing and on the merits motive is protected always has been this court should not be the st one to put a chink in