positions in the district of columbia area two of these essentially the administrative office of the us court system the a o c work immediately rejected on the sole ground that i was at the time i applied a resident of the commonwealth of kentucky and not of the d c metropolitan area i attempted to use the a o season ministre to preview procedure and was told that procedure simply had nothing to do with my claim i couldn't use it therefore i filed a lawsuit the only claim i've ever raised in this lawsuit is that the a o sees actions violated the constitutional right to interstate travel which is a fundamental right there are two issues in th this supreme court has decided in the seventy's and the eighty's for employment cases in each of these four employment cases two of which had to do specifically with legal jobs and this is not including the frazier case this is a green court held that the right for a non it resident of the state to apply for a job was a fundamental right under the privileges and immunities substantial equality good access to the jobs though we don't know because the record has never been completed how many jobs and what percentage of jobs the a b c does is in certainly the fact that there are any jobs whatsoever to move across state lines the right to go temporarily or permanently by getting a job that by itself has been accepted by the supreme court in four cases as a violation court said that it had never quote question the validity of the conditions placed upon municipal employees that a person be a resident at the time of his application but these are four supreme court cases eight in this and the concept that this is a fundamental right has been accepted by the supreme court since as i said justice bush wrote washington first created a list back in state bar but unlike residents of virginia they always had to take the bar exam and that by itself was held a violation of the fundamental right interstate travel in this fashion there are a number of cases which have been raised in the papers by the a o c in the trial court where federal courts have said in dicta and without any analysis whatsoever that the privileges or immunities clause does not apply against the federal government however there are two problems with this first is the only piece of information anyone so far has been able to unearth about what the ratification and immunities clause of article two is a limit on the federal government use that in a reply to the an objection made by george mason to the constitution's been ratified furthermore to get around what was then a difficult federalism question the concept that obviously from the structure of the constitution no specific language so if the privileges and immunities clause is limited it doesn't deal with criminal versus nevada that every citizen has the right to come to the seat of the federal government of the words washington d c for a number of purposes one of which was rather true which were that whenever the limits of the right to travel which is harm think the name because some are always about traveling to to operate across more years rather than have a borken i said of states or jurisdictions whatever that right is against the federal government resisted all the right is to go to d c to try to work for the government which is what i wanted to do furthermore the  of the of article four did not bind the federal government but gave no reason for just said they would just wait while these cases appoint and the supreme court reversed now it shows of course not to reach the constitutional issue because  the morning they please the court john in toronto for the administrative office of the united states words this court should affirm the district court's grants of summary judgment in favor of the administrative office the core issue travel is not impeded by the geographic restriction contained in certain of the vacancy announcements that she applied or was not present in all of them and she was able to apply for three jobs that she was considered for not chosen this policy is free to travel to or from the district of columbia to visit the district of columbia or to take residency in the district or one of the states in the district community commuting area as judge hale pointed out the court's finding that the administrative offices restriction did not make it more difficult for ms to travel to d an article for privileges and immunities clause case is the second category that was identified in sands vs roe the right to visit the district of columbia i think that's an important distinction is pollack does ground largely ground her claim in article war because she argues this is such a fundamental right this would be in the constitution itself  or discuss the time of the framing her claim here is that she wants to move to the district and that and become a resident to work for the administrative office so that would be a distinction the nation as a single entity which is the language in all and the judge the district court below correctly found that the right to travel to the district to seek employment heavey case that the right to the privileges and immunities clause was not did not apply to the federal government the supreme court did not reach the constitutional question in frasier it exercises supervisory powers was not implicated so or impeded by the vacancy announcement so in that case even if the court were to find that in some cases it could be applied to the federal government we would submit in the first instance that it's not if it did advise of the federal government you would likely be in the hicklin category where you go to the second and third prong of hit land which would be a heightened scrutiny trips for me to look at  it was the a overstretching didn't heed this pollitz right to travel then it would be in a heightened scrutiny the this report is you i would you be able to we have our view that we believe that we would in this case that the administrative office first in advertising this position open did in the first instance to a nationwide  of applicants those that work for the court system or the ministry of office and then expanding it in certain cases to sort of expand the pool of first looks at the d c commuting  you know we should in the expansion to the d c commuting area is justified and we've argued that it limits the  dministrative burden of processing a large number of applications that in x in limiting it to the community see commuting area there is a sufficient number of qualified applicants found that can be referred for consideration you have in addition to the court system in the expertise it were boys may have you have in the d c commuting area talent of attorneys often that have experience with the legislative branch  court looking to hire or if you're looking for that the merit principle of five u s c twenty three a one b one that applies has been applied to the boards talks about recruitment from appropriate sources so reported in hiring clerks traditionally may be looking at a nationwide pool of tourney's recent graduates perhaps that have gone to law schools throughout the country and that would be your pool when administrative office makes it scott when it extends it to the d c commuting area it doesn't restrict further restrict except for the minimum qualifications for the job within that so of course sources may be office is hiring within the fiscal year that we've discussed in the declaration of blue there are fourteen positions so maybe two of those they go nationwide for the third one not so broad in that a which we don't agree with but the court made the ministry of office need to hire somebody on short notice that they may want to look at a smaller pool if they think that there are enough qualified issue so there's a difference depending on the nature of the job it may be that they need to hire on short notice that going through hundreds of  supreme court said that this geographic limitation was both a rational and arbitrary as far is the number of jobs out there that's a fact issue and the judge granted summary judgment without either allowing me any discovery or even for that matter giving notice so that i could try to submit information and furthermore in satans the road the supreme court made clear that ten million dollars a year being saved by california was not a substantial interest and on top of that it said the fact that you can fix your money problem by discriminating against people from out of the area does not give you the constitutional right to do so what do you think is your best before a full proposition of the role government is covered by the union school i think it's matter of common sense would be so that you don't decide the summary judgment motion and then move to discovery requests a mix of subs and we have some cases that suggest that makes no no merit to it but the court just said it's moot now because i've decided against her that that makes no sense i would suggest a couple things first mr oliver and h i don't know whether this is right or wrong i want to make sure i understand what your answer is you say she didn't raise it into a reply so it's been forfeited that's a first ok let's assume that's not right and i don't know whether it's right or not what your answer on how could the district are simply without the discovery requests there is this case law that and i've been involved in one of these cases it does not make sense to do that i believe that it's consistent with the words decision in that finding that the vacancy announcement the restriction did not violate a fundamental right to travel and that it best there's so there's nothing to discuss right there and  requests to issue tell you truth i lost my temper privately where the government kept pushing the case along extending it and never even giving me an answer so i moved for procedurally early discovery that is what i have never argued was it abuse of discretion however separately and the discovery that i was denied is in my