is about whether our client should be released on bail because the district court found that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their haiti as claims that the government has been deliberately indifferent to the substantial risk of serious harm that our clients days while detained at the fres review will be as the nd circuit put it substantially meaningless and may take months before the district court enters final judgment and our clients face serious harm every day they remain detained during the pandemic and this is made even clearer by the fact that case that the government initially filed its own notice of appeal requesting this court's review of multiple of the district court orders granting bail so at that time the government either recognize that this court has jurisdiction over the appeal or if they truly i met you can under your device and reintroduce yourself on the record please please the court smear on and on behalf of the petitioners opponents i'm reserving two minutes for a bottle main reasons st the district court erred when it failed to release our clients on bail even though it found they met the hay vs bail standard they are likely to succeed on the merits of their behaviors claim or exceptional circumstances warrant their release nd the district court erred by failing to provide any statement of reasons for the denial of our client's bail application i'd like to address both these errors in turn first underwood kochan going petitioner is entitled to release either if they can demonstrate that they're likely to succeed on the merits of their hey this claim or exceptional circumstances warrant their release here the government concedes the district court found both the government was likely deliberately indifferent to a substantial risk of serious harm to their health while detained how are they likely to proceed at this point i mean what good would it be sending it back given what seems to now be undisputed as to change scenario your honor we significantly dispute the current thoughts offered the vaccine your honor i hear cannot make any statement regarding whether or not they were offered because there is nothing in the district court record heard any counsel sometimes facts develop that are obvious to all counsel in the parties while the case is on appeal that can affect the mood in appeal even and so i'm not asking you i know it's not in the record because it's after you appealed but we've been represented believe you wait a minute so you are the one representing your clients are you disputing the governments that they were offered the vaccine as i read your most recent filing you were not getting that you were simply saying that they had good reason to not accept that that exene and that the house of correction had failed obligation to provide them with more education about it so let's go back disputing that they were in fact offered the vaccine yes their honor because i don't know exactly what was communicated to my clients i don't know what language it was communicated to them i don't know what they understood and i think that's your friend that the question i asked you at one of your op legation as count is accurate is relevant then we believe that the court should remain and to make certain findings because we do not understand you know our clients may not understand why what was offered to them in what language  fundamental question is i think it is inconsistent for you to argue that there is on the one hundred m that your client's humble likelihood of success on the merits and to argue into knowledge on the other here at the facts on the ground have changed and have changed in the material way we have this question of the vaccine or for and what was said and done in connection with that we have we have what appears to be a significant change in the levels of confinement and so on and so forth so how can you make a claim of likelihood of success and to stand how you can  and for the fact finding or not but i'm going to buy your claim of likelihood of success on the broader that's based on the fact that judge young has not reconsider the likelihood of success on the merits make including the likelihood of success on the merits finding including any findings regarding the vaccine i have reserved two minutes for a bottle and i'm happy to address the further arguments of our time or here's the practical point that we're trying to get at and we probably haven't been clear enough but you you achieved a remarkable success in the district court on behalf of a large group of clients getting very substantial relief across a pretty broad spectrum from the passage of time is now kind of pocketed that least for you but now when you're keeping it alive you know when the facts appear to have grasping at straws trying to hold off on an extended more extraordinary form with the relief you got that could start putting in terrible relief and your honor i only represent these petitioner poems on appeal who are denied of victory and conditions have now changed and as judge sell you pointed out to you the pursuit of this appeal concerned with conditions of close to a year ago may in fact be an impediment to your addressing any remaining claims you have in the district court i recognize that your honor but sit in recent weeks six individuals immigration detainees have tested positive for cove it including two dollars to three dollars of our clients we do not believe that even under the current conditions under least pending finally judy occasion of their hearings let me ask you that which truly you're talking about your clients have attracted killed your honor i think in a public hearing we didn't want to release our clients serious health conditions but we're more than happy i think it's in a sealed filing with the court to let k f c have contracted how did they possibly now have the honor in our supplemental brief we explain that individuals can reconstruct coded and can get even sicker potentially at a later date other courts have also found that even if a petition or has contracted coded it should not disqualify them for later release and so for even those individuals who have contracted we do think that there is a lot of claim here made please the court christina parascandola for the united states before i begin with argument i have three updates for the court these are updates since the supplemental briefing happened how can we make a finding your honor the court's review respectfully is limited to the record that was before the district court when it changed materially including but not limited to the release of certain of the appellant's wouldn't it be an empty exercise for us to to go and make rulings on on a set of conditions that no longer exist and that might never work or wouldn't it be a far more efficient use of judicial and legal resources to remove and gander an updated record and a more current version of what's really happening at the house of correction yes your honor the government would agree that these findings should be presented to the district court  decide in the st instance you know whether conditions have changed and how so and what the remedy would be and so yes that the government agrees that this is something that all of these nineteen when we submitted our supplemental brief on february th i reported that there were there had been seven so there are eight and this is all reported on isis website it's a matter of public record and of the quarantine and the necessary measures are being taken and the population is so small now in this facility that everyone has their own room ok and proceed to the argument  know we have an obligation to explore that st before we consider anything else brings us back to the need to remain and to pin down the facts to determine and we do that sometimes in exploring the will we will retain jurisdiction every man for certain findings and then see  do your honor i think all roads are leading to rome here we agree that this is really something that shouldn't been presented to the district court st you know the conditions were changed with the vaccine and the recent  cases so i was a little astonished to have the government say well part of that case is if there's very good argument that the whole case both and the only thing they brought back to the district court was for what for the sky and they now are to be released on bail because of change conditions and they complained even as to that the judge didn't really state a reason although our it's quite clear in that when the reason is self evident from the record these are people who committed quite bad offenses they have quite a bad criminal history it's pretty obvious that a finding could be made that they were it would be a risk to the community perhaps more so now that they can transmit  or they were a flight risk so i'm not certain really what what is left of this matter your honor the government agrees there is probably nothing left record aaron and take account of all these various changed conditions would you be prepared to work could you give  us an idea of what the government thinks that order really me and should look like your honor i could submit supplemental briefing with that remark order not to reasonable the district court should remain and determine how our clients do they still meet the heaviest bail standard for relief in exceptional circumstances or likelihood of success on the merits and to take into consideration any other considerations including the current level of confinement the offering of the cut back scene these are issues that your honor we do you dispute the fact that now the government's reported that eight individuals have tested positive there's only sixteen people currently in there we also dispute their representation that every single person has their own room a client contacted us last week that said he was still being groomed with more individuals i think your honor the fact apparently over seventy percent of bristol county staff themselves have refused to take the vaccine i think a simple order that just says this appeal is moot or there's no  and i would put a seven day limit on each of you exactly what issues should be remapped wouldn't you prefer to do that in your written submission rather than off the top of your head yes your honor more than how to be within seven days to submit a supplemental brief explaining what we would like this court to remain and onto the district court to make certain findings ok and not done both of you are talking about briefs that you can file br not to exceed fifteen pages but such briefs should contain a draft order that's for each of you simultaneous filing and then you have five days there after the file jack thank you your honor could i make one last point regarding our client's criminal histories the reason why we think there is that it is it evident on the record that they're dangerous to the community is because judge young released he acknowledged one individual who had served a twenty year cocaine sentence another individual who had multiple assault convictions we do believe that time and some statement of reasons as to why o people no your honor i think at the very least he just needed to make certain findings as to why or clients were gone pay and that included that put that in your proposed order i will thank you very much your honor i have the arguments for today this session of the honorable united states court of appeals is now recess until the next session of the court god save the united states of america and this honorable court counsel you may disconnect from the meeting