judicial officer asking me the body that currently has to defend the custody to hold them for forty eight hours so that the immigration can come then and take them into custody so that you put in revenue that we use prevents immigration from taking someone into custody after the district court has ordered them released on whatever conditions that the court has ordered them released and you're making  she appeared before an immigration judge and there was a bond hearing in the immigration form as well it's a different standard in terms of release from the immigration proceedings it's for their it's the defendant who has to show by clear and convincing evidence to determine whether there was a minimum amount of risk of flight or danger to the community in order to hold her for ten days and he did he did do an analysis and he determined because of her uncertain immigration status he would give community yes the court made a determination we're going to hold ice doesn't take your client at that time correct that's correct ok on your theory as i understand your argument is since they didn't take her then they shouldn't they they lost their right to take her and if they did take her she was entitled to release conditions in front of the ice authorities and i correct about that that is correct but it's not an indefinite prohibition against ice taking her it's just during the pretrial  until there is a conclusion there of guilt or innocence all right let's hold hold that for one second rate you've applied it to ice this statute speaks beyond ice it speaks about appropriate courts probation program parole state local law enforcement in order to adopt your view you would be asking this court to also say those independent sovereigns also can't take any action until the federal criminal proceeding is concluded is that your position that that is not the fac statute talks about independent sovereigns and to adopt your view would also be saying that the federal government's going to dictate what these other sovereigns can do during this period the is that supported by the statute i would say i would argue yes and the reason being is if we're talking about state actors other other nonfederal actors the supremacy clause would then go into effect and the bill before matthew which would be the law that would govern what we are it we're would the supremacy clause take precedence to you to the extent you're saying that these other authorities are prohibited from acting if the federal government takes a defendant st because doesn't the statute really provide a mechanism for these other authorities to actually as something that outweighs released it becomes just another consideration and so that citizens and non citizens are treated equally is not right i think i'm not sure if i understand the question this if you detention deportation or exclusion meaning just because there is detention provisions available in the immigration laws that should not influence the decision maker on bail for the criminal case c that the this provision comes in the beginning of the b o r way it's so that if the state actors do not take advantage of that tended period they're going to have to wait until this trial is done because it's important the united states places such a premium on freedom and the presumption of innocence part so you're saying that if somebody gets conditions that really sat in a it's not immigration case and that person is also wanted by  states are thinking of the state authorities are saying no state authorities can start taking action towards that person while they're pending trial this happens all the time the big can start taking action but big won't be able to detain them what if they're violated parole what if the with the united states could also file another motion to detain them in the federal why should they have to do that when we're talking about the if this the authority of an independent entity to take action in their own keys because that's what the upshot of your position is everybody has to freeze other actors and it's not just ice and that's why i'm focused on these other actors everybody has to freeze but is that supported by the statute that i think that goes outside the scope of this case though is it supported by the words congress put in a statute i don't understand what do you do that i have to ask you how your how your interpretation the statute impacts all those other actors who are also covered by the statute i think it's very different in this case because the actor here is the executive criminal case and his release ice can never take that person into detention now that that's not my position at all it is that once the the bill reform act only deals with the idea where it's an immigrant is released and the preventing or preventing any other law regarding attention even if there is a very substantial credible basis to believe that that person will never show up with a criminal case if that person would never show up for the criminal case yeah it's i mean the purpose of a rose isn't sure the appearance of that person in future in further proceedings but if it appears to the to the official that is making a decision that that person will never hearing judge drawbridge wondered aloud why hasn't immigration put a detainer on this person why haven't they already done this and the u s attorney had no response but there's a back and forth between judge drawbridge and the u over that ruling so put that aside the other was to basically direct ice to release the individual correct yes or no what is the authority of a district court judge to tell an immigration judge to release somebody is being held under the immigration statute i want to rephrase it as in in force one of the district judges order that the person should be released and that's where the conflict comes your remedy going to like a twenty to forty one proceeding and look at haiti's proceeding before you know chip do a civil challenge if the order is contravenes another directive something like that rather than having the district court judge on the other format i still don't see where the belt format gives that authority you're just saying the court from immigration custody but what we're arguing here is that that they cannot during the pendency of this trial hold her for the purposes of keeping or for criminal he said is that the case in every every instance where an immigrant has a pending criminal case you know the words immigration could never detain and immigrate when that person has a pending criminal  know you would have to get the bail st you have to get the justice in the criminal form and to order them released on bail that's where you have a conflict otherwise they e that is not what's being appealed but isn't it failure to enforce the terms of its own order against the immigration authorities isn't that what gives us jurisdiction well as has been suggested here the court has no such inherent authority to do important that congress specifically has denied to judicial review of the order in the immigration case and so on i'm just i just want to deal with stiction for the order that he's complaining how the court should order of the immigration court a proper understanding of that will include the conclusion that you can't do it through the back door by saying you're not enforcing something through the bill form at one thousand two hundred and twenty six he is a jurisdiction stripping proceed statu both and the nd circuit have all three concluded that the kind of relief your adversary is seeking is not available and they felt very comfortable they had jurisdiction to make that pronouncement they did because those were government appeals so so the government had a statutory right to appeal the orders that were entered in those cases but there is no case in this pastor of an appellate court reviewing the just records denial of this sort of motion your position is  and so it either falls within one of those very narrow exceptions for in a locked or appeals which includes bail or doesn't and that's our view here turning to the merits if i may be there is the government's position endorsed by the other circuits is that the court does not have authority to tell the immigration what to do these are two separate proceedings to address the detain or question that a judge when he presented instances we have the authority to laws and to enforce the criminal laws they are happening simultaneously there are different procedures and rules that apply to each and different challenges that can be presented and here the bill of format permits the district court to say the immigration laws notwithstanding what would i do here and the quite say they would release the defendant but the immigration court said otherwise and has my colleague mr campos accurately pointed out it's a different standard in the immigration court the burden is on the defendant there and a higher level to show that the the likelihood to appear for the immigration proceedings and this is not a normal case this is not normally what happens and that's why we get into the detail or the government does have the issue here as  acknowledge which is that these things may come in the conflict and it's up to the executive branch to work things out and the way things normally work out is that the government wants the criminal proceeding to take precedence the decision has been made to prosecute this individual and that's worth doing even if the person has to be removed and so the way it happens is the the charges bribe the government opposes bail and the district court the immigration authorities only file a detain because they wanted to get the criminal case to go forward in almost all of these cases bail is denied under the bill before act the criminal case goes forward and then when it concludes the immigration authorities pick up the individual based on the detain or here there are some bumps along the way i have read in some cases that what sometimes happens is that immigration takes custody of the immigrant and that person is  can take steps to be dressed like bring that person back to pennsylvania or new jersey oh certainly the criminal court can always rip the person then for purposes of the primary the district judge or the district judge exactly now in pennsylvania again that also never becomes an issue because it's always your county that's where the individuals are held for immigration purposes something most convenient thing if you're philadelphia attorney as opposed to someone in harrisburg but it is reachable it's not helpful you know why in this case  where the district judge says we're not quarreling with this the district judge says no this person can be released if i'm considering everything other than immigration then immigration says ok we need to step in here in this case i think the record is out just make sure i understand the government if we're talking about the sovereign is acting consistently from your point of view in a criminal case we ask for detention in the race for detention that's right that's right there and what we would prefer is detention in the criminal case because that allows the criminal case to go forward  only have the detain her and not the actual removal proceedings continuing we prefer for that away that's normally what happens but with that was taken away from us here not quarrelling with it but once the judge released it and the immigration court  no we don't believe this person is going to show up we need her to be in custody now we have these two things conflicting with each other we have to manage it going forward she said you just my concern about concern question about any change or w a case like this for he's receiving well that's right now to be clear of course that would be very limited because you have that statute that says the court should not review the attorney general's question and so the sylvaine case explains the narrow basis on which he vs couldn't be applied to that immigration context which is basically you're looking for a constitutional or legal error normally proceeding is continuing as far as the basic argument here that the bill reform act says that once you've released the person nobody else can hold them that is not a fair reading of the statute and i know judge schwartz was only asking questions and not steady a position but basically states our position which is that that part of the bill reform act isn't just about immigration it's about other federal case state cases there's nothing in there that says give them a ten day opportunity and then if they don't use it during those ten days then you proceed and make a dorm of decisions and we have the federal government are now preempting any ability of any of these authorities to later take the person into custody based on current circumstances changed circumstances they have a house that that's putting and it relieves the district court of the need to decide whether there will be federal pretrial if they don't act during those ten days and the fact that what all this is saying is i federal court is back on you you have to apply the bill reform act in this case immigration but supposing under the same same announcer same person is released in the mail reform act that person based on what you say can be picked up by state officials that's correct and then immigration for some other answer the question on the interstate agreement of detainers that might play and then so say during the ten day period a state authority takes the person in the past the interstate agreement on detainers only applies to sentenced state prisoners so if you have a pending state case and a pending federal case then i they would both go forward they just have to be rigid back in four days time when they're needed in court if the person is a sentenced state prison and this bill form actors contemplate that and the state wants him back and takes him back in custody then we also have the idea to deal and we get is just like with the immigration we have to be cognizant of multiple statutes and abide by them as we were required to under the id simply all it means is there's nothing here that the present pre amps one or the other and the the operative principle here as the other circuits have said is that it's the court's obligation to give effect to statutes to the extent that they can and not just simply assume oh these conflict with you thank you your honor i would just like to point out that the d c circuit procedural standpoint is very similar to this court as well opposing counsel has noted that of the other three circuits nd th and d c it was the government appealing which is true however in the d c circuit the underlying criminal case was not finished and was not finalized the in my case the district judge issued a prohibited ice from picking up a person in from the same actor the executive branch which has control over both the department of homeland security and the department of justice and if you looking at the facts of this case and look at what happened during the three thousand one hundred and forty two d hearing it becomes clear that when the united states attorney heard directly from judge roberts that if the tuner is issued it's case closed for him there will be no bail soon thereafter there was a teen or issue and at the end of the day this situation is very different than state