and brian ward i will try and reserve for minister rebuttal we are asking this court to stay the district court's legally flawed and vastly overbroad universal injunction of the president's recent proclamation addressing the harms caused by new new arrivals who do not have a plan for addressing their healthcare needs upon entry to the united states the president's health care proclamation is a valid exercise of the broad authority congress gave the president in section two  f and the district court's reasoning and its injunction cannot be squared with the recent supreme court decision in hawaii as judge brass explained in his opinion on the administrative stay the supreme court there explain that section t is a comprehensive delegation to the president to impose additional limitations on entry beyond those grounds of exclusion set forth in the ins and that's a quote from the opinion in other words in addition to in admissibility ground such as the public charge ground of inadmissibility with respect to the legal authority to issue this proclamation there's no basis to distinguish why indeed there were no dissents from the portion of that of that opinion talking about the breadth and sco for example could the president exclude all children on the theory that they want to know theory st of all and i even have to have a reason or be on the basis that it's against haven't studied the provisions of the i in a addressing children but probably you should and there aren't particularly any there's certainly nothing that addresses whether i mean we know constitutionally that they have to be allowed to go to school but  there is nothing specific that says whether children as children can come in or not i mean there are some provisions have special provisions for children yeah well i'm saying that t v sets up a very specialized scheme for unaccompanied children and i have not studied that and whether the how that works with section two hundred and twelve f so i don't want to directly answer that i do want to say if the president and this is the language of the statute whenever the president finds the entry of any class of aliens would be detrimental to the interests of the united use the term far away she is now i understand that you're saying that anything having to do with immigration is foreign relations but it's usually it's always been foreign relations or national security in some  states given the history of this provision can certainly be understood in that fashion i would push back on that into a little bit in sail it was about a blockade in the in the high seas and the court piracy entry into the united states is the same thing i'd also note at a brisk which the supreme court favorably cited in hawaii talks about injuries inside the united states and the the d c circuit there said well this kind of a dumbass ability might not apply but the president is not powerless he can add a restriction on entry that would address this harm from in the united states and hawaii itself you know we can talk about it's a national security but the ultimate harm address there is harm inside the united states if there was inadequate screening so and the statute itself speaks of detriment in harms to the interests of the united states which you know could be foreign relations the president also can add them you have discretion and in the terms of the supreme court the statute exudes deference to the present and in trusts to the president the decision making on which additional ground which additional reasons to to preclude entry and that is a scheme the whole lie approved and and it may and it makes sense because congress and the president share constitutional responsibility over the border over the entry of aliens and that comes from now which where the supreme court you know in a non delegation challenge back in one thousand nine hundred and fifty said now the non delegation doctrine does not apply here because the president congress share authority this precursor to section one thousand one hundred and eighty five again that was specifically in the context of a national emergency yes because the statute at that time said it was applied when there's a national emergency and why i talked about that change in the statute and said one reason you can't limit to twelve after two national emergencies or war or things like that is because congress removed that language and gave and understood th position that we should not look past the findings or examine the findings but is there any support in the administrative record for the statement on the proper and the proclamation that immigrants are three times more likely not to have health insurance and  i wanted i do want to talk about justification why i said it's questionable whether a court could review it but if you take a look i'm sorry my question was is there any support in the administrative record for that state ok i'm sorry i should have been more direct  administrative record that we submitted to the court relates to the implementation of the proclamation there is not an administrative record for the proclamation it is a presidential proclamation and so there's only there's no support in the administrative record to submit it is or support anywhere else to in plaintiff's crew declaration they they they cite statistics that show similar to what the president found that a much higher percentage of new iraq polls lack health insurance then i'm looking for the statement that three times as many i'm just  it's it's made in the proclamation there's no citation to it and if there isn't a citation to it that's fine we can then talk to the next is there any support in the record the the the proclamation stands on its own as the president's determination and i do want to stress that the plaintiffs have not disputed that aspect of it they have said it's not as big a problem because there's a small number of new arrivals but they have not disputed use less medical care and because yes because they used it maybe because they want to sell thinking that all immigrants not just legal immigrants as i understand their crew declaration is very general it's not talking about the same groups and they using is something like point six percent or something like that a point almost six percent so miniscule new new immigrants are a small portion of the total population of the united states so they're not surprising but it's therefore not surprising that this problem which is a big national problem although the the thrust of the current administration is to have more insured people not pure this particular group is being singled out to spend this is one thing i want argued well the i question that i've put if you look at their p r motion from page thirteen to twenty they talk about the provisions they think it violates and they don't talk about the but in any event the dischord didn't rule on it so we're sort of  stay so we think you should look at the grounds the district court turn it on to issue the injunction but there's no conflict with the and i want to stress that there is just no concept st the says nothing about entry it is talks about  plans that are available once a person is here the problem and it does not says nothing about two hundred and twelve f which gives the president this authority to make restrictions on entry nd there's nothing about the proclamation that limits an alien once they arrive an alien can get a plan that satisfies the proclamation come to the united states and then under the get a subsidized plane there's nothing preventing that and in that situation the what has happened what's happened we have a new immigrant who has and that is the problem the president was tackling three times as many new arrivals lack any insurance and if the alien makes a plan and maybe talks to you know advocacy organizations how can how can i knew in the negotiators this navigate this new requirement what the what it does is it at the end of the day it's more likely that the alien will have health insurance which is what the president is trying to tackle and i want to stress this is the increase we started we got this is that what you're supposed to do is pay for the the the car the coverage that doesn't really provide much coverage and then and then pay for the subsidized coverage to well again the president is tackling the problem of aliens who have again part of the part of the justification is that the aliens plan on their own with their own resources to take care of their healthcare needs so at the moment of entry when they're planning their to come they have to have a plan using their own resources and the public like that's totally irrational you're saying because the day they arrive they can get a plan which is subsidize your challenge because they have a right to get that and yet you're making them buy something that they don't need i want and i want to know and i have a question suppose i came to that conclusion you're telling me that i have that doesn't make any difference and i nonetheless have to approve this with the we think that the choli said it's questionable whether you can even connect the dots in up with a presidential proclamation the president is entitled to make these judgments and it is the president's did the job the congress gave him to make these types of judgments but even if you get beyond that and say well we're going to we're going to take a peak it's not disputed that we have a much higher rate three times as many in the proclamation people who are uninsured and keep in mind three times as many who are uninsured under a six a current environment where subsidized plans are available so that's not enough that is not enough to bridge the gap there are available now yet three times as many new arrivals lack insurance are you so the president's so the president says  dispute that are they really don't mean it's just a practical question how this is geared toward reasonably foreseeable medical costs and in looking at the implementation of that how do we how are the how are the agencies assessing what is a reasonably foreseeable medical cost for example let's assume arnold schwarzenegger comes to the french presents himself he has no foreseeable medical costs is there a ability for him or somebody like him to enter without insurance i doesn't seem to be under the regulations but maybe you can correct me yes again there's two ways to satisfy the proclamation one is to purchase one of the many the wide range of insurance products that are available the nd is to show that you have the ability to pay for reason are not paid but if you have no foreseeable medical costs and you don't have the ability to pay can you hunter i've again this application the proclamation kind of cut in joint before it even started but state department issued guidance that said evaluate the current medical condition based on the health forms which are already submitted right have read through all that in the administrative record and i don't see any any where except maybe the i r five's where there's an assessment of reasonably foreseeable medical costs independent of the insurance requirement or financial require a man you know if you're perfectly healthy and you don't have insurance and you know financial means under the proclamation has implemented you don't seem to be able to get into the united states is that right i'm not sure that's correct because i think one of the guidance documents said if someone's healthy and does not show a sign of having foreseeable medical costs and has you know the other paperwork that i don is required for the public charge ground which shows that they're going to david to support and say now you're adding to my hypothetical if they're healthy and they have no they don't have an affidavit of support they don't have insurance they still can't be admitted even though they have no foreseeable medical costs i'm not sure that's correct but i again it is said that as a point i might require i mean it might be the consular officer making a judgment call you know on resources balanced against case it is striking that in that case the d h s went through a notice coming rulemaking it had a record administrative record in we were able to review the whole expansion or completely just say oh fine without any record any notice in common any and any substantive review that's basically where we are where the president does not issue proclamations after notice  comment i understand but i want to know about the overlap i mean why isn't it the case that when the public charge thing specifically relates in part to health and finance right and the  regulation deals with health insurance and financial ability and this deals with health insurance and financial ability but nonetheless  this is regarded as something to the side of what's in already in the statute which has multiple factor approach to public cause and it would appear that  that if this were valid the president could simply with regard to every one of the factors in the public charge come forward for example we could say nobody without a college education could well let me answer how this is different from all the charge st because if we put aside the part of why that says the president can supplement existing grounds of inadmissibility which which is what happened here the this targets a different problem and has a different solution than public charge the problem is different this is focused on the burdens of uncut of uncompensated care for new arrivals where as i keep saying over and over again new arrivals have lack insurance at much higher rates that burdens private hospitals that burdens emergency rooms by because people well known are denied care the the plaintiffs maintain that on the insurance that they're required to pay they're going to burden the more i think well if you look at the health care professional declarations that the plaintiffs submitted and there are a lot of them they all talk about how the insurance products that are available and they admit that these products are available such as visitors even in general are not directed at private you know private the provided free care i can now i'd like to that's they're different they're less comprehensive than the but what the president was addressing were aliens who get no insurance they're more comprehensive than having no insurance so if there's a five thousand dollars cap on surgery coverage which you see in the palin declaration that's five thousand dollars it's covered for someone who has visitors insurance where that five thousand dollars would burden the hospitals it would burn people the public whose has cost shifted to them and if they seek that tired emergency room when they didn't need to all of that is what the president is addressing here the comparison between someone who comes in with no insurance thirty three dollars times as often as someone in a u s citizen and and burns the parents to come and if you look at the and that gets to the harm part if plaintiffs declarations are entirely conclusory about the harm and most and it's hard to see it as anything other than self imposed they said everyone says well the insurance i an affordable but they don't tell us how much it costs or what kind of resources they have or whether what kind of plans they looked at some say they can't get visitors insurance plans but plaintiff's health care experts say that they can get visitors insurance plans one plane if  says her husband purchases travel insurance when he comes to the united states normally but now that's not possible it's just their declarations addressing harm are entirely conclusory and certainly don't justify injunctive relief which is what i will ask and charge let's say there is says small part part of this that is being paid by private provided privately but a huge chunk of why did it is that uninsured people are using our public hospitals and state and local means of paying for medical care so there's still a huge overlap and the question is is your suggestion that that overlap the fact that that most of this at least is within what's covered by the public nonetheless have a completely different role we have two arguments a why i said quite clearly the president can supplement existing grounds of inadmissibility so that's what happened here this is a supplement to the public charge rule in the  point is this targets a different problem in a more focused way the problem is different because it's about aliens lacking health insurance and the costs those impose on the public yes but also on private parties emergency rooms hospitals that is the component of the problem that is different and the solution is different the solution is not it if you don't need public charge you're inadmissible you're out of luck here there's a range of health insurance products a range of prices that satisfy the proclamation and plaintiffs have not shown that is not available there are markets that have developed already for visitors plans to address this proclamation they are out there and available and readily available and if this proclamation gets intending immigrants to think about insure their insurance plans when they come to the united states where insurance is is the norm and do creases that thirty percent it's accomplished its purpose and the president again the agencies are going to submit reports every one hundred and eighty days i believe to evaluate if it's working and that's exactly what the president is hoping to achieve here and it's a reasonable way to address a problem that the government not only hasn't hasn't but any evidence in at all to contest the declarations that were put in by the plaintiffs include in that this is going to affect sixty or sixty five percent ok i mean it does it it applies to intending immigrants in mid multiple categories and i think spouses and parents are ones that will apply to morrow have that we have several generations saying we're talking to six thousand and sixty five percent of the legal immigrants and i take that as a fact but i think the o m b notice estimated that these questions would be asked of three or four hundred thousand people experts will tell you why they get the number and that's what we've got again the we have a legal issue here on whether this is authorized under the ins if you want to talk about harm or if it cuts both ways because if there are a couple one hundred thousand or whatever number there is that are they have to satisfy the proclamation are eight aliens who are likely to or not likely but hot much more likely to not have insurance than people in the united states already and so the president is addressing a real problem and in joining as this report did the president's efforts to address that problem not only is is a significant institutional harm because congress and trusted the president to make these judgments that is the person who is charged in our country with making those judgments and so if it impacts a that number of people then when there's a real problem and there's a  that you can satisfy this proclamation with a range of insurance products and again you know if i go back to the current situation and subsidy or subsidize a ca care is available now but the problem still persist justice action center i'm sorry my time today with thong my plan is to address the st of the stay factors upon showing on the merits and this one will address the remaining state factors and also the scope of the injunction then it's continues and it says we're still going to check the findings we're still going to check for whether it overrides any other provisions of the we're going to look whether congress has already legislated in the relevance fear those are the three parts of the analysis i think it's relevant three of the decision and so we're in the court to do the same thing not to accept that because it is a fraud on its face it is limitless but instead that we read it within context and we find its limits both by the requirement findings but also whether it conflicts or override another statute or to use other language from the decision whether there are other statutory provisions that implicitly bar the president's actions and judge prism has identified some of those issues that we've already discussed with the little revisiting so i heard today poland say that proclamation that immigrants i three times more likely that sorry he said that there are new arrivals you need to stay closer to the microphone otherwise my apologies that's like you i heard i heard upon say that new arrivals are three times more likely to lack insurance i believe what the proclamation refers to are immigrants the proclamation doesn't discuss the new arrivals that are the target of the proclamation i think it says legal immigrants doesn't not lawful immigrants but that is different yes it is different and appellants also said that the problem it's addressing is immigrants who don't have insurance in the united states the class of aliens that it bars includes those aliens who would have comprehensive insurance with subsidies so finding about the lack of insurance for lawful immigrants doesn't pertain to the class of who are barred which includes people who would have insurance with subsidies so what is the scope of our allowable review of findings in a presidential specifically state the standard of review for the findings but what it does say is different than what opponents of said opponents of said the president doesn't need to connect the dots and i'll read you from hawaii the context from which my comments it says that when the president adopts a preventive measure in the context of international affairs and national security he is not required to conclusively link all the pieces in the puzzle so in that context where we have national security and in the context of trump we had very detailed findings from intrade intergovernmental review that were specific to the countries that were at issue in that proclamation there where you have these very detailed findings and you have national security we can see that the court with willing to be deferential why also refers to some other proclamations in the foreign affairs context where there were more superficial findings so maybe we know that ok if we're in foreign affairs more superficial findings might be ok but here we're in a really different place we have a sensually no findings about the cost of aliens actually being barred and we're in a domestic sphere where congress has already actively legislated how do you propose to police this line between foreign and domestic because one thousand one hundred and eighty two leftist by its nature is about the entry of persons into this country it's always going to have some amount of domestic violence to it but yet it also clearly has a foreign affairs valence to it to well i would posit that i don't think it always has the foreign affairs context and i think why also helps us answer this question because hawaii looks at the text of the proclamation in that case to understand the motivation for it says we look to the text and there on the face of the proclamation there was a connection to some foreign affairs component so if we do the same thing here and we look at the text of the proclamation in this case we don't find that connection so i think that's the st way we want to answer that's right the proclamation talks about how this will be implemented which is through by interviews conducted by consular officers who are obviously at operating outside the united states it seems like a pretty obvious foreign connection foreign affairs connection there so if that's a foreign affairs connection it's something far more daisy chained what's happening here than anything we've seen in any other exercise of section two hundred and twelve so if you want to see it as a way to if you want to see it as a spectrum rather than if there are foreign affairs connection or is there not we're way on the side of where we are just inferring the sort of foreign relations connections that's not apparent on the face of the proclamation and i think if you look at all the other cases the government has cited here you'll see that the connection between foreign relations is much more clear and i would say also that this idea of foreign relations power in the immigration laws is already an exception to the general rule that the president doesn't have lawmaking of authority and so to take the foreign affairs exception and make it apply to every law that in any way touches any immigrant is to allow the exception to swallow the rule i did have a question about this looking at your opposition brief you know most of the district court at least the central part of the district courts analysis was under the non delegation died friend so are you defending that aspect of the district court's holding or are you  abandoning it i wasn't sure from your brief so i disagree with the characterization for the st point i think he discusses the non delegation doctrine and the holding of the separation of powers and if you look at what the injunction does the injunction enjoys the  application do you think this was a violation of the non delegation doctrine but what i think is if you're willing to read to twelve ask with the kind of limitations that emerge when you place it in its statutory context twelve as it relates two  approach and in a way that's the approach that the majority took in we look to things other than the literal words on the page in a vacuum the way we get to the non delegation problem is if you take a pants approach where not they're not able to find any limiting principle at all i'm not saying the court has to do that i'm saying if that is the answer to why this proclamation can stand we have a new problem that raises grave constitutional concerns so you didn't  geishas correct we argued it in arbroath your constitutional avoidance that as a response to their position as i read the district court order try to match it with your complaint or as of it in because it didn't seem to a separation of powers problem so what i do i will double i don't have it on my finger checked i will double check that for you to confirm but the way we understand two hundred and twelve dollars f it's a way hawaii does which is you check to see if it's overriding congress and if it's overriding congress that's where you get your separation of powers claimed you can avoid that by reading in some limitations but if you don't read in those limitations when you heard in the religion overriding congress the real question is it seems to me is how close in just that have to be that is it or to put it in ordinary preemption terms is this kind of a feel preemption sort of point that is the public charge provision and perhaps others are what congress meant to do about anything having to do with health or finance and you can't add to that tries as i understand the government is more for a given position aside for its position that we can't do anything that doesn't matter if there's a connection is at least there's nothing explicit in  preemption i'll take that in a couple of ways starting with hawaii where it refers to express override and then it also looks whether there's an implicit are so you could use that language and it also checks to see whether congress has already acted in the relevant sphere and i think that's where you're thinking preemption because we're talking about i'm not talking to calling it preemption i'm just looking at the concepts and it is a similar it is a similar concept in the sense that the purpose of all of this is the same it's to check to see whether congress has already legislated in this  and whether the president overrides what congress has done now i think that opponents would say in the foreign relations context you might have some authority to maybe run into congress in some way but we're not there and i think youngstown talks about implied will of congress so you can use you can draw from these different cases to find that we do look for what it's both explicit and implicit in congress is legislation when it has already legislated in the public charge provision has basically five different features to it if the president issues a proclamation that relates to any one of those would that then be unlawful under your reading of this of this scheme so that is in our case if like you i think you do i think it is your case right i mean you could take any one of these features age health family status financial situation or education slash skills which is the last one if the president were to issue an executive order that relates in in any way to any of those factors wouldn't you be arguing that that's that's an override has to relate race i thought that your whole point was that it's so closely related that it's actually essentially preemptive of the executive order so really i think your question to me is is anything related to public charge automatically a violation is not what is my question so i am child in trouble imagining what related means in this context so i'm taking it back to our facts where we have single factor dispositive as i understand the government's argument it's not there's not one hundred percent overlap because even on your approach because the proclamation includes impact on private not just on the public well i don't think the question is about overlap but override so for example in this multi factor totality of the circumstances test a person may satisfy congress's concerns about financial burden and yet the health care t president has issued will override that instead of being considered within the multi factor test that already takes into account health and finances so that's the nature of the override i want to pause just because i'm conscious of time and i want to respect my colleague good morning your honor is and may it please the court i'm esther sung with the justice action center for the plaintiffs a police and i will address harms st a stay is not warranted here because the government has not made the necessary showing of our repertoire harm as judge burst one pointed out there's simply no evidence in the record of the harms that the government is describing in its in its briefing there is no evidence substantiating these harms there is this figure of immigrants being three times more likely to be uninsured and there is this thirty five billion dollars figure of annual uncompensated care costs but there's nothing in the proclamation and there's certainly nothing that the government has submitted to to to explain or quantify what share of that thirty five billion dollars of unco costs is directly attributable to uninsured immigrants the government so i repeat my question what what's the scope of our review of findings of fact and a presidential pro the government says basically in a presidential proclamation we don't have any authority to look behind the proclamation unlike the administrative procedure so what's the scope of our review what your best best case  gross said we can look to what hawaii tells us and in hawaii what we had was a national security context and very detailed findings here we don't have a national security context and we don't have very detailed findings that any of that you're talking about irreparable harm and don't they have an obligation for to get a state to show irreparable harm or whatever showing what their harm is made with their actual record that yes judge a person that's absolutely correct and we don't think that they've made that showing here well let's assume for the sake of argument that the proclamation the factual allegations are true does that change your no i don't think it does because the uncontroverted record evidence that we've submitted shows that well st of all even if the findings are true they don't actually provide the necessary evidence to show the harm that the government is describing in its briefing and nd the uncontroverted record evidence shows that to the extent that there is an impact by arriving immigrants who would enter at this stage of the litigation between now and when this court can consider the the merits of the government's appeal which is a relatively short period of time the impact that the uninsured immigrants would have is exceedingly small the coup declaration says as judge person pointed out that uninsured immigrants consume less than th of one percent of opposed to a finding that's in a presidential proclamation st of all that the government hasn't tried to contest the evidence in the and the the figures and they cou exploration and the finding in the proclamation still does not speak to the harm that the proclamation is a sensible to trying to address which is the the contribution that uninsured immigrants make to uncompensated care costs and although the proclamation does identify the thirty five billion that's uninsured uncompensated care costs generally there's nothing explaining or quantify what share of that is attributable to the class of aliens that the proclamation would like to suspend entry for and at this stage of the litigation it's simply that the government hasn't made the necessary showing and the claims of harm that the government has made need to be balanced against the very the irreparable harm that the proclamation would inflict not only on the named plaintiffs and the clients of latino network but thousands of other similarly situated individuals who are threatened with that well that's a good segue to my my question in terms of the scope of the injunction the government argues that if the plunder interaction is to continue that it ought to be limited to the name to point us as opposed to a nationwide class what's the justification for a nationwide class in the plumbing or injunction st one  justification is the harm that we have here the harm is an unlawful proclamation that overrides congressionally legislative sachi tort provisions and that harm cannot be remedied simply by for hitting enforcement of the proclamation to the named plaintiffs why is it the case that that would be true in any in the context of any rule that has a national scope that is true but but judge simon's opinion here is very closely tied to what the record is here and we do think that the scope of injunction is supported by the record which shows that in addition to that the harm of  this proclamation that overrides congressionally legislative statutes that in doing so the proclamation inflicts irreparable harm on an thousands of similarly situated individuals who do face the same genuine irreparable harm so then why as a practical matter the proclamation does need to be implemented by agencies it is implemented by the consular officers who who are on the ground conducting consular interviews and so i do think that that's why simon's injunction speaks to in joining enforcement of the proclamation as to affected individuals but the under this court's cases what the question is is do you need a nationwide injunction to remedy the plaintiff's harm the there's no class it's been certified and so on what basis would the court of needed to issue a nationwide injunction to protect the several individuals in the organizational plaintiff that are actually in this case right now if you're asking what's the harm to our individual plaintiffs if someone else is denied a visa under under the proclamation that's one that's one way to frame it or you could say you know why do you need a nationwide injunction if this had just been joined us to your clients and to the organizational point of why wouldn't that have been sufficient relief for them well st of all it can't be the case that the proclamation is unlawful as to the named plaintiffs in the clients of latino network but lawful as to every other individual who faces the same irreparable harm and with respect to the scope of relief we do have a punitive class  we have a period of class meaning that you alleged a class but no class was certified you can even even for the purposes of the plumber no class has been certified yet but judge simon is moving forward with  the government to pursue a class artifice certification discovery which they wish to do he has set a briefing schedule to complete briefing on the classification motion and he said that he will take the class certification motion under advisement yes they have approved petitions and then they need to go to the consular interview but your proposed class includes not only people with approved petitions but those who are pending and want to file correct yes  let me ask you this question as to the nationwide scope of the injunction how can you just anguish between the irreparable harm that can see that would exist to those who have approved petitions and those who are just thinking about it we think that the harm that the proclamation presents here is an unlawful obstacle to individuals who are seeking or would seek immigrant visas and  as i understand it completely out of those was approved petitions but the nationwide injunction extends beyond that to those who haven't even apply so can you explain the irreparable harm to your clients poor petitions which is they may not get approved petitions so it isn't necessarily their obstacle that they may have other obstacles that is true but the presentation of the injunction speaks to this particular obstacle and also i point out that reiterate that the government hasn't made the necessary showing for a stay here and it's premature for the government to suggest that judge simon is not capable of tailoring the injunction on a going forward basis as he addresses the plaintiff classification motion and the government is free to offer evidence and argument as to why the scope of injunction should be tailored at that stage but in the meantime well yes and if the court does has have reservations it doesn't this doesn't seem to get it exactly the opposite why wouldn't why wouldn't this injunction be answered to protect the people who are currently before the court then have the class certification proceedings and then at that point revisit it and if appropriate broaden it but at this point there is no class the class proceedings wrong going there's that can be a very lengthy process and it's not remotely complete yet and so why start big and then go small when it's not necessary to protect the people are actually before the court at this time judge simon found that the this breath of injunction was necessary to preserve the status quo and i think that that is within the court's equitable powers and he did consider an extensive record that shows that the harms extend far beyond the named plaintiffs which is what the district excuse me what this court has instructed the district court to do in and is are to the city and county of san francisco to conduct a search in ry of the record and whether it shows shows that harm has done that here and the injunction does preserve the status quo and prevents a major and present unprecedented change in the nation's immigration system from occurring which balances the equities while the litigation moves forward thank you counsel thank you put on four minutes or a bottle will give year the time you try to reserve there are questions to ask you over i appreciate that just raise a couple points st on the district court's scope of the district court's injunction which is universal not nationwide  applies worldwide i guess so they give us you know if we limited the stay or the injunction as to the nameplate what's irreparable harm to the united states of these handful of people coming in already have approved petitions know obviously the the harm is much more substantial given that we have a nationwide injunction and this court has recently sort of said that that's a concern it requires this kind of my question is if we limit it to what's what's the what's irreparable harm to the united states for these handful of people well there is no there is there it would be the nation white harm but smaller so the present the it would still have the institutional harms against the present effectuating the will of congress for fetch weighing the will of congress i mean all the only willock i ate your straw your op argument is that essentially that the will of congress is he can do what he wants but it there's no other will of congress sell unlike most i mean i in general the that but we did we do think there's institutional harm congress and trusted the president to make these terminations that what that's what hawai sit were kind of getting back to the merits rather than to reparable harm but we would sit we would say that that is is the kind of institutional are there would also be obviously harm even if we expand a to the universal or nationwide and what happens and the next two or three months well the but he's up the been the end the applications were go forward they'll be decided one way or the other it's hard on her heard argue that the nation nation's health care systems in a come crashing down the next three months the harm to the the harm to the president's identify concerns is permanent because the only chance to effectuate this proclamation is at entry so everyone who enters in that time will not be subject to the proclamation and will cause the harms of the president identified and linus would say that's a lot of people how many people is that in the next two or three months well i you know i can the plaintiffs have a number i think the i mean it's  there's you know probably a couple one thousand and no i think i mean i mean i don't know how i'm going to prove to go through all the process they go through you know they've got they've got to get their visas for other reasons and that's a pretty limited number of people within this limited time scope well not talking about permanently i get you get your point on the institutional harm is much more extreme there and the o m b notice i believe said these questions would be ass or around four hundred thousand dollars immigrants intending immigrants per year so if you divide that up you can see that there are significant numbers who would come in and cause those harms identified by the president and i want to stress this court especially in impact on non parties again there's been no class certification process that year if and and forum shopping the risk of forum shopping and what what california v a s are said is these concerns have have especially apply when we have apply with special force when there's no class certified and here there's been no class certified the district court said in its opinion i'm not going to look at that i don't have to look at that i'm just going to issue a universal injunction so we don't know if it's appropriate to certify class we have significant questions about it the district court authorized us to take discovery because of concerns about the scope of the class the class representatives and the declarations we talked about before that are very  that time and i think in the san francisco or east bay cases this court did not accept that kind of reasoning that because it's an immigration case you always get a nationwide injunction we're seeing the stress on the courts there are caused by these injunctions i'm not sure we'd be  to the same district court and asked to be included in the injunction and then another one hundred people can go into some other court and have the whole thing we litigated and you know the federal rules address that because they create class action procedures they represent seven people in an organization right now until the corps the district court goes through the process and s s is the appropriateness of them representing everyone they they don't represent them they talk about their clients being heard but their clients are the seven pla and the organization and there are so those protections are really important and they help avoid what we have here which is if they win and get a nationwide relief they don't there's a they can they don't really need to go through that process if they lose it doesn't bind any of the non clients so it is a distortion of the system and it is something that you know the supreme court recently this court has expressed concerns about and in this case it's a very easy solution if you know we have all our arguments on the merits on and on why there shouldn't be an injunction but even if there is it's quite clear that injunction addressing the seven plaintiffs and the organization which has limited geographic scope would fully of last year there's going to be class discovery that goes on over the next few weeks and i think we're renewing class certification papers by the end of january so they're moving quickly i think i'm way past my time so i can make it if you want to conclude going well i just want to conclude this is a you know a whole why it's very hard to separate this case from hawaii where the supreme court recognized the breadth of the presence of the already in that he was intrusted to make these kind of terminations this does not the presence of addressing people new arrivals who lack health insurance is not the exact problem addressed by the public charge will an exact problem is the term used in the hawaii discrimination based on nationality and the proclamation was nationality based so the court had to study whether there was whether this proclamation expressly override a provision of the n i n a when your son simply supplementing a ground of inadmissibility why is much clearer it