as to whether roller son has pleaded a plausible substantial claim for intentional discrimination against port freeport based on arlington heights factors and under it all nd a question of st impression before this these questions is yes because the latter issue is one of st impression we want to address it st given the court's likely questions what are the other means to review the co decision under section sixty two that would provide rollers and an adequate remedy for the chorus action after seeing to all there is no such remedy unless there is review available under the e p a we know that plates judicial review to ensure that a federal agency is not advocating its authority under title sex the court may review these claims such as the ones mentioned in prior houser by the u s supreme court just two years ago this is the broad type of judicial review that's allowed for federal agency actions while roller sense and intentional discrimination suit provides an adequate remedy to address discrimination by the court i adequate to address the army chorus intentional jurisdictional decision because there was no federal funding which should be reviewed importantly there is no case cited by the army corps of engineers or in this circuit that addresses our specific situation these cases are in opposite and not the circumstance at bar i try to cluster abuse cases into three groups for the court's convenience st cases where relief was barred comes from similarly cases where relief was barred meaning barred by limitations which is the case in jersey heights the plaintiff did not have a power for and against the government because their claims were time barred that's the st cluster cases both distinguish because here roloson had a opportunity for a remedy against the federal government which was to file administrative complaint that complaint was refused based on the question for jurisdictional decision and we believe that that review should be allowed the nd group of cases is the cases involving the scope of the suit meaning the situation where a plaintiff is seeking overbroad relief such as agency supervision by the court that's the case presented and washington legal foundation or the plaintiff has challenge nationwide decisions by an agency such as in counsel for the blind or across the plaintiff has brought big sweeping y the rd group of cases i recall those but lacks specificity these are simply plaintiffs that failed to identify a specific agency action or a group of programs that the federal agency was undertaking better objectionable these are the cases like sure are doe and we find these are again distinguishable because our complaint against the army corps of engineers is clear we believe they made an incorrect jurisdictional decision and we will be federal funding was extended to part report that is a statutory determination based on and existing federal statute that can be reviewed by a court importantly and i really want to emphasize both of my time as a these cases all recognized limits review as possible and counsel for authorization to sue federal government in a situation specific suit for improperly funding a particular in city or into price is not the same as to permit a plaintiff to demand across the board judicial supervision and continuing agency three courts have allowed actions directly against many agencies and narrow circumstances i would like to bring some of those narrow circumstances where relief has been found by in court yet in  are going on they are st i want to point out our ask you about something i noticed about the city of freeport because you're talking about some sort of disparate impact claim and i looked freeport up and with a pedia i think we can take judicial notice of the fact that as of two thousand and eighteen the population of freeport was approximately sixty percent hispanic and twenty percent african american and then perhaps twenty percent white and don't don't hold me to those precise numbers of freeport according to census figures or at least a local consistent with those of the town in general so where do you where have you alleged a plausible factual basis or any kind of racial discrimination by a minority majority  against minorities within a minority majority yes your honor may believe that because the targeting of this particular neighborhood which is an majority minority as as the court recognizes because of the historical situation where this is where the minorities in the town specifically african led to that area being per actually somewhat it being a spot for businesses and residences to grow for an african american and if that were the case should be going under historical preservation statutes but you're not you're alleging disparate impact discrimination and that means it seems to me one group of minority protected minority citizens is being disadvantaged to the benefit of somebody else who is not the minority but they're all minority so it sounds like that's got to be geographical rather than minority or  based discrimination ringback well the actor here is are actually reported freeport and we believe they're being an organization and is different than than than having  conflate the port with the city so maybe that undermines my idea about disparate impact but the poor and the city are two distinct entities but the port is operating geographical he in an area that may be predominantly minority not simply african american at this point in time i think you're you're leaving say that  but within a minority majority of municipality so i just thought i still you know it's something to ponder i don't want to take all your time on it but i think the problem is we believe are underlying violations of federal law here so regardless of what the population that's impacted there is a violation of federal law and it has an adverse  on a predominately minority group and again after here is part report and despite what the the economic or german graphic or economic makeup a particular community is there is an impact from discriminatory basis of the actions that are taken in violation of our laws be alleged that amount to discrimination in this case ok and what what do you in saying that you think the district court had jurisdiction under the a p a to challenge the army corps disavow of of its own jurisdiction what are you going to get out of that the review we are seeking as far as a relief we are seeking a review of the federal administrative complaints and possibly pursue an investigation and it's discretion but we are seeking rule of law so bottom the most you can get is an investigation i suppose of well let me ask you know explain alexander be sound of all said that there was no cause of action but that the only cause of action under six hundred and one is for intentional discrimination and the plaintiffs well there's nothing in the end of all they didn't say that that jurisdictional decision as here was not still reviewable by the federal agency and just meant the plaintiffs can sue a directly under section sixty two against the judicial review would be reviewable under the e p a the only barrier to review under a p a that was was adopted by the lower court was the adequate remedy analysis and i think i spent my time hopefully wisely expand without negatively impacting a minority community i think they could expand by following federal law which is what we say they should have filed to begin with here in the port delayed for ten years after they knew it would pursue this expansion project following the directives that were given by the army corps of engineers that it would pick their mess and not following rules and all that does not prove intentional discrimination so my question is how d do you connect the mistakes if you will and screw up to discriminat against the minority community if any expansion of the board would impact a minority community maybe the or but explain that to me so  not necessarily the the port isn't allowed to expand is that it's not allowed to expand into a free base and if the port is undertaking and doing things a violation of federal law in a way that disparately impact or discriminated against a population because they are seeking economic benefit we think that they have a duty to comply with that federal law as stated in the army corps of engineers own agreements with them in financing  the port expansion as far as the deepening of the channel and we don't believe that that violation of federal laws is just obviated by the fact that all the sudden you're and majority minority town those those federal laws exist for a reason to make sure that those protections are available the protections who are be able for the community and people are taking advantage of in an improper way and i just didn't misting your original time is ended you sketches out the procedural provisions that mr over some is complaining that the court did not follow the difficulty with that claim which he did draw is that there is no private cause of action  a causal nexus require between the use of federal funds and the acquisition of property in this instance there's no dispute as far as i'm aware that everyone agrees that no federal funds are being used by the poor to acquire the adjacent property so he had no uniform relocation acquisition policy claiming he then attempted to retool that or re purpose that into the title six claim that is before you the t itle six claim is requires proof of laws of bull intentional purposeful d racial discrimination the poor move to dismiss the case both on the basis of lack of standing and on the basis that roloson had not articulated a plausible cly of intentional racial discrimination when all it was doing was acquiring the property mediately adjacent to the poorer for its expansion activities the magistrate in the trial judge which is that to prove under title six an intentional racial discrimination claim the standard is essentially the same as an equal protection calling and it requires proof of differential treatment of similarly situated property owners based on race d or some other independent direct or come are a circumstantial evidence of a discriminatory animist tied to race here and that is absent as mr  acknowledged there is no suggestion that the port has treated any of the property owners in this adjacent area differently in its property acquisition offers under this court's decision in stone burner the absence of any evidence apartment any allegation issues of a similarly situated group that is not a racial minority that has been treated dissimilarly is fatal to this client now are the appellant has referenced some out of circuit authorities there's a a case they rely very heavily on that's out of circuit to imply that even in the absence of the existence of a similarly situated discriminated minority member they have independent evidence of racial animus they comparable st of all that that case is not binding nd of all that case involved direct evidence of overt  racially discriminatory anima so it's distinguishable and the reality is that without more on the facts of our case which is simply a land acquisition policy to acquire  property that no one disputes is contiguous and most suited for the ports expansion basically has failed to this case there is no dispute that everyone gets the same opportunity there's no dispute that everyone is being treated equally there's no dispute that the impact of the expansion activity on the potential sellers is is the same so that is a threshold matter we thought and do believe the plaintiffs for others i don't believe there's any dispute that no federal funds are being used for the property acquisition program the nd nexus or federal funding nexus is disputed by mr olson we have to think he's wrong in that the record is clear about it but mr roemer some does and receives federal funding which means that the full court has received some programatic funding which does implicate title six and because of the court's concern that that was a record confusing issue we stepped around that that's really not relevant to the trial court's decision but it is relevant to the dispute between  we've addressed that in our briefing there is no historical nexus between the history of racial misconduct in the region embark on a cording to point to the appellant by the city of freeport in port freeport the records devoid of any racially inappropriate behavior by the by port freeport period and so there's simply no court con historically or otherwise evidence in any racially discriminatory conduct and several lee there's no contemporaneous evidence of any racially discriminatory conduct by the court freeport much less d the city of freeport which is the as that judge jones has noted is a majority minority unisa palette with regard to the sequences leading up to the ports decision there's no dispute that the goal was to acquire all the adjacent property there's no dispute that there's no action by the port picking and choosing selectively treating one property owner differently than another property owner on the basis of race or national origin and frankly there's no dispute about the legitimacy or the rational basis as is dennis acknowledged the rational basis for the port to expand mr rover since compliant it at the root of his comply is an attempt to use title six to impose on the court obligations under the uniform relocation act that are applicable because the act is inapplicable that's essentially what this is is an attempt to use title six as an alternative vehicle to impose procedural obligations on the work that it does not have because of the emphasis mr o assumes argument on the corps of engineers i'd like it less the panel has further questions i'd like to  has a right of action against report but on the other hand congress recognized that there would be no liability and lawsuit against the federal only when a more specific substantive statute does not control the analysis or cause of the action as the supreme court held in bowen and congress did not intend the a p a is general grant  jurisdiction to replace special statutory provisions and proceed others hear the line of case law that we cited in our briefs stand for the proposition in hold that plaintiff cannot sue the federal government for an inadequate or ineffectual administration or decision not to administer or and force title six because those plaintiffs have an adequate alternative remedy and that remedy is to bring suit directly against the alleged discriminator as i mentioned earlier and this is a priest made clear here rather sin availed himself of that exact remedy and for that reason the district court properly held that he had an adequate alternative remedy and as a result there was no jurisdiction that i want to respond to  prohibited and it doesn't matter how nearly a plaintiff attempts to cast or cabin their e p a the initial determination the initial terminate she here on federal financial assistance or not is merely one step in the process of which there are many you know whether to investigate if an investigation is conducted health care or comprehensive is an investigation and if they discrimination determination is made what in force meant will be pursued or not a plaintiff can't stop that process or pick a decision point in any point in that process and pull it out and it into narrowly challenge that under the a p a they're all part of the overall title failed to properly process and mistreated the client there are several cases where the plaintiffs argued that the plaintiff failed to the federal government failed to properly consider ministre her claims or that the federal government ignored sixty one failure at an agency actually i'm awfully withheld or unreasonably tonight both but courts have or have not engaged in that analysis because there is a broader more categorical role that there is in argue that that's what they're seeking to review in this case the federal financial decision or not they a plaintiff can't isolate that action when when the court reads the complaint as a whole and in particular the relief requested it becomes clear that their claim is much broader than that in sierra club the peterson the plaintiffs attempted to isolate several forest service timber sales which were in and of a full in fair and complete reading of the complaint in particular the relief requested in the complaint shows that this case is not about a near a review of the corps jurisdictional decision relief request is that the court the court the district court ordered the court to enforce title six and take action against the port the relief requested is that the court ordered the co to not fund port freeport with any type of federal financial assistance so under the peterson and we cite those sections of the complaint in our brief and it's the record cites five hundred and thirty five thousand five hundred and forty one those record cites to the relief requested in the complaint when when read as a whole it becomes clear that this is in fact a freeport i believe the other issues that were brought up by the appellant in their brief and even today are fully addressed in our brief and are also addressed in the district court's opinion granting our motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction but i certainly want to answer any questions that the court may have are was a finding of standing under trial be why and challenge that was made by the port and that was clear in the memo recommendation that the recommendation was adopted by the lower court so there is not a question of the court standing i'm happy to address that in our brief as well further the standard that's here for the court's review is under arlington heights which the court made clear in its recent decision in v z in tw made based on arlington heights factors which again do not require direct evidence of racial animus what it does is say will take my sake a factor is under arlington heights as several of them were ignored or  the counsel for the port has stated outdated th circuit case law and he's was referencing given's any any finding that's going to be provided by the army corps of engineers to the port triggers title sex  there is clear agreements as to what the application of the uniform relocation act is of the port or the port specifically agreed in those agreements federal cautionary act as well as in the you that are cited in our br that include obligations of the ports of complying not only with the uniform relocation act but also title six so these are important things for the court to be aware of as far as the there are allegations imposed by federal funding and the recipient of federal funding is subject to title six regardless of what is using federal funds for us to all things they undertake under current law as as far as what our relief  clear i think our pleadings make clear that we are seeking review of the federal financial assistance decision as argued in our briefing in the lower court that is what we're seeking to review i've explained that to the court today as to why the  cases that are cited that are also outside of the circuit do not bind the courts ability to have his case go forward and wrap up i just want to state in closing that the district court decision should be reversed on both of the issues i mentioned earlier since peace must be allowed to proceed to the next stage for the following reasons there was adequate pleading of an intentional discrimination against  prepared on arlington heights under it all there is adequate pleading a federal financial assistance as acknowledged by the army corps of engineers in their briefing just or a view is available on narrow jurisdictional issues a federal financial assistance just like in any other case and it's not a question here of agencies discretion because there was no investigation undertaken by the army corps of engineers and there is no other adequate remedy to go after scene of all to address the section six and two failures by the army corps of engineers as far as the burden is shifting for officially neutral policy case that does not require a mcdonnell douglas framework and that would not even happen until we get to a summary