challenging indiana's statute that prohibits my client's convenience stores from who are allowed to so beer but prevents them from cooling the beer at or before sale there are two primary issues like to junction standards of weighing evidence credibility making factual findings with the required rule fifty six standards of taking the evidence fairly for my clients the non movements in responding to a fence really have a legal issue here and our standard interpretation issue one of the key issues below and before the court today is the indiana statute that treats differently or clients who are in policed incorporated community searches a sell men and others and the union a statute treats more favorably the same grocery stores pharmacies community stores that are in unincorporated towns which in the state of indiana there are hundreds of them this statute and permits those persons to obtain a beer retailers permit that is correct and we're not seeking a beer retailers permit that is granted their clients not that that is correct honor and but the important thing here is not the label but what the permit allow so our clients have beer dealer permits that allow them to sell beer the state is dignam worthy of doing that in fact their compliance is more favorable than the package stores and they also oriel able to sell wine and wine coolers that are cool the unincorporated town permit allows under the beer retail schmidt specifically under the statu and if it is what it says it is and the convenience stores are the same under under the purchased or statute there's no requirement within the statute that they have any of that or that they do any of the well at the can't that's subsection can't be read in isolation it has to be read in the broader context of what a beer retailers permit but the merits and disallows and requires as a regulatory matter appreciate their honor but the be real tear a permit for unincorporated town grocery store does not require them to sell on premises they could but it doesn't require them to the statute allows them to sell cold or warm cheerio beer unlike other statutes it does not say  unique structure where indiana has said historically when indiana first allowed the sale of cold beer it was by a bulletin in one thousand nine hundred sixty eight where the commission said you can only do that liquor stores in areas that are policed clear from the statutory scheme which is that grocery stores and convenience stores and on an unincorporated towns are not subject to any of the other requirements of a beer retailers permit it and i don't see that in the  are and whatever whatever is meant by that and strange juxtaposition of what is a beer retailer and what isn't to be a retailer it's clear that there are a whole elaborate regulatory structure that they have to comply with from it except as authorized and then there's a specific statute for unincorporated towns right but you're thinking that in isolation from the broader regulatory scheme which is an improper way of interpreting statute or respectfully or out of the specific controls of the the entire statutory scheme permits a grocery store convenience store in an unincorporated town to saddle cold beer without regard to all of the other requirements of a beer retailer that they can defy all the other selling beer but have been discriminated against because their perimeter from outer before cell cooling that even though they have a superior compliance record by the state's own scientific studies and even though the business model naturally brings that about that they would be a more compliant because police are their parents or their coaches teachers because it's a convenience store grocery store so respectfully and then we move to the rational basis and whether the court were to would agree with our position on the unincorporated town stature and if so then that makes the disparate treatment discrimination in a rational basis very easy if the court does not accept our position on that and we go to simply the comparison between the package the wars that are all right to sell cold beer and our clients they are substantially similar in the respect that both the retail operators both are able to sell beer both are prohibited by statute from selling to minors both have age limits on whom can sell at work there and sell to the minors and sold to two persons twenty one or over but package stores have been given this privilege of selling cold and is below a group of liquor stores intervened and said this is important we look for stores because we've been given their own affidavit a competitive advantage but there's no rational convenience store get a container of ice put my beer in that i can do that the butt of the sellers i'm up to that i could also cool it as soon as we do fact within a minute so by the time i'm in my vehicle i could have full beer but yet we have this archaic protection of statute that is a result of lobbying by the packaged lobby in indiana that's not unusual of course it's not in this context and of course no liquor stores have to again with a whole separate set of regulatory requirements as to beer at retailers in that they i mean their servers there their employees have to be over the age of twenty one as i understand it and nobody under twenty one can even enter a liquor store  spokesman and that's because they are able to sell for instance well my clients are not everclear that is ninety percent alcohol and other whiskey and bourbon and other look well and they're put us on the number of liquor store licenses that can be issued as well as on on your dealer permits as well yeah but the liquor store says that's much lower is it not it is a lower number it is but that that should not in determine in any respect the rational basis of favoring the liquor stores well sure it makes law enforcement's job easier there are fewer stores to patrol for violations well most interesting look at the court committed or blow by fining there's going to be of more of a challenge if suddenly my clients could we have an obligation and the court should review can we meet that and in doing so the court has made clear that change circumstances for instance should be evaluated and when this statutory structure started back in one nine hundred forty one my and the package store was what it was now we have to convince the modern convenience store the modern pharmacy the modern grocery store and the changed circumstances that those retailers undisputed fact hav significantly stronger compliance record so it was rational when an active that has ceased to be rationed certainly in the in the spring court found it rational back in one thousand nine hundred two but seventy three years later a lot of change including that our clients didn't even exist back then the model didn't exist the market is entirely different and that's why the suit was was brought the record shows this that as the government studies continue to come out to show yes the convenience stores grocery stores and pharmacies are far more compliant that it simply makes no sense that i can walk into a convenience store grocery store and buy warm beer and i can go by forty percent wine coolers that are cool but i got to get the beer off the shelf that's not cool that's actually backwards if were if the rule speculated interest is to restrict minors from getting beer because you know annoying other states that allow also a cold beer where's the beer in the cooler where it is less successful less visible to my face you're a very powerful lobbies can't you just go to the indian alleges that they do you get this changed they have tried your honor my clients have tried for five years and of not had any success which is why they also we brought the suit th did certainly try every branch of government but every day my clients constitutional equal protection rights are being violated and there is not a rational basis under this this market under this current condition both because of the owning corporate town provision and because  the whole legislative scheme here and it really surrounds the fact that we're limiting the sale of cold beer which when you sell cold beer you have beer that is more readily immediately consumable then warm beer oh some people may drink warm beer that's certainly true i think it's rational for a legislature to assume that seventy years ago and now that when you're selling cold beer sixty's i guess to the present for cold beer that people might consume that more readily and have an interest in wanting to limit the sale of that beer and limit m the package liquor stores or restaurants that they're required to have servers who are trained who are twenty one years or age or older that's not the case with convenience stores there are a lot of differences between the convenience stores in this particular case and the permit holders the package liquor stores and restaurants amendment the sale of alcohol and in this case it's one thing to limit the sale of cold beer in the end and so it is done so by allowing coal beared be sold by these few outlets restaurants essentially and they packaged liquor stores but not allowing it to be sold like these thousands of convenience stores there around the state of indiana which would just increase the amount without any question of cold beer that would be sold in the state in the end so while there may be some changes that have occurred over time and while maybe convenience stores were not considered back when the law was first inactive certainly there are still rational reasons for the legislature in terms of limiting the sale trying to prevent minors from obtaining cold beer and consuming it and also the enforcement and of the situation certainly if we had thousands of our call outlets that can sell cold beer particularly if they don't have the requirements of having a have the training for the sellers and all of these things could be other problems that can occur the fact is is that the enforcement problems that would relate to dealing with convenience stores is clearly much more significance than the limited number of  for and rational for the legislature to then say regarding the beer dealers which includes packaging liquor stores and and restaurants that they have because of these additional restrictions that exist relating to their permits that it's rational to have those sales of cold beer her by those permit holders and not others who are not so restricted by that because it makes enforcement of the law more easy to do less expensive and all of those kind of stinks so i'm back at the beer retailers section of the code that appears to authorize grocery stores and convenience stores to obtain a peer retailers permit if they're in an incorporated area it carries with it the restaurant requirements i think it carries with it all the requirements that relate to that you know as we would say impaired material related and yes there are those requirements all the week we we do contend that they think that the convenience stores and unincorporated areas could only  case would have pointed to some examples in one of our points in our you know our briefing below and you know i want to appeal is that there are no examples of any convenience stores in unincorporated areas are being allowed to sell cold beer and so the commission has never issued one of these hybrid license right and we've there's no evidence no one in and of corporator area any person any body that might be a convenience store has applied for this kind of license holders kind of license or is making any kind of sales a cold beer under a license so there isn't any unequal treatment occurring between unincorporated areas and incorporated  well the statute may not be extremely well written i think that's what can often you know that happens in legislation but i think there's without any question you always look at the related provisions of law and if they relate and if they apply you apply them so in this case i think everyone understands has understood given that you know given the situation that convenience stores are not eligible sell cold beer you know an incorporated areas they have to be something else they'd have to be this hybrid and they'd be subject to those requirements and that has not occurred i don't know whether it could occur but that's not really the question in this case the question is whether the plaintiffs have been deprived of equal protection of the law given the situation where the convenience stores and incorporated areas can't operate as convenience stores and sell cold beer in her view hundreds statutory scheme there pin be no equal protection problem there's no differential treatment between unincorporated areas and incorporated so we're left with the discrimination between convenience stores grocery stores on the one hand and liquor stores and restaurants on the other if there is a meaning we can ten that there is a rational basis for the for that scheme in any event because we're limiting the sale of cold beer in general the absolute quantity of cold beer that can be sold my is limiting it to those particular permit holders and we're also limiting it to those permit holders who have persons who are trained and licensed to do the sales and word is more convenient more efficient to perform the enforce because people younger than twenty one can't even enter the premises either the bar area of the restaurant or the package liquor store so in those circumstances it's rational to have those limitations and that and that's true now where there was true you know before convenience stores existed it probably was because even then the legislature was in the position of determining that wanted to control how how beer was distributed ultimately when it went cold beer was allowed to be distributed how cold beer was allowed to be distributed because cold beer is viewed as something that can be immediately consumable and as a result there there can be additional force mint problems connecting with people buying cold beer so we believe that you probably wouldn't even have to reach the question o racial basis even in this case because there are so many differences between the convenience stores who are the plaintiffs in this case and the permit holders of packaged liquor stores and the and the restaurants treated more favorably must be identical or directly comparable to the plaintiff in all material respects and we really don't have that situation when we look at the types of for middlers that the convenien stores are trying to compare themselves to in this case and i think has been alluded to in addition to the kind of sales the age of people that have to do sales the training and all that but there are a very limited number of packages liquor store permits in the state so the legislature knows that that sale is is being limited by that limitation on the number of permits and  in factors there's also some limitations as i understand packages liquor stores the owners need to be indiana residents and that could indicate that in the mind of the legislature that there would be more control by having the owners of those permits me the edges events that would be easily subject to enforcement and regulation can't be open and sunday not actually know that they can't be open on sunday there are limitations in terms of their hours of operation package liquor stores are more limited in terms of the amount of time they're open they're not open on sunday restaurants have limited hours of in general restaurants have very limited hours of operation so between restaurants and packaged liquor stores are as much limited much more limited periods of time when cold beer can be sold then you have convenience stores that sell cold beer injunction proceeding and summary judgment pretty sharp our position is that the district or did it really a pretty good job the evidence was really the same in both the summary judgment submissions and  the women or injunction submissions many of and the things that the plaintiffs considered to be very significant very important are not such as how you know they  allegations that their stores are more brightly lit and those kind of things that does not go to be russian how the reasons for why the legislature has put the sale of cold beer into the hands of package liquor stores and restaurants they've done that so that they can try to ensure that beer is not sold to minors that there is a that there's a limitation on the amount of beer that so those kind of things that in course mint will be easier how clean the store is whether coaches parents police officers going to convenience stores no doubt they do but no doubt parents teachers and coaches go into restaurants and practice liquor stores as well when you try to make this kind of argument i think what you're trying to do is really make a legislative argument to this court to try to overturn a statute which is clearly on cost clearly constitutional under the twenty first amendment or an argument to the court of public opinion or to the court of public opinion then responsible terms grocery store is not a restaurant the restaurant is a fine term this is what the statute is and the statute was just recently reaffirmed because this is the quote the legislature criminalized the prohibition for my  agree treats grocery stores to mean stores in unincorporated means power these differently than grocery stores in huge doors and on corporate towels yes there's a difference can you think of any reasonable basis for that i cannot acknowledge that different treatment i cannot find anywhere in the statute anything that says an unincorporated town but you don't you don't want that permit the unincorporated talent to permit though does not require the restaurant respect the union does not let the other court did not address this we argued it below the trial court did not address changed circumstances of the supreme court the seven story this court has done what are the changed circumstances for instance this market didn't exist back then it's undisputed in the record and i'm spewed now in the marketplace that our clients fare better in compliance why is that because we don't have signs that say drink like a champion today like liquor stores do as of