good morning your honor just my name is jacqueline dryden and i represent the government of the united states this is an immigration case arising from the government's challenge to a district court granted as mr tries to petition  what the supreme court further said was that it was not dealing with a case of terrorism or special circumstances such as someone who is dangerous and has mental illness or espec six ninety one of the supreme court's decision in size because it does mention that special circumstances can include it dangerousness that's coupled with a mental illness and that is where the the government takes as a starting point for its authority to promulgated regulations that it did and with regard to judge clifton's question regarding national security i believe that when we have an individual who is not a citizen of the united states and who has a final order every novel and is going about our country violently attacking citizens or g and that are in this country that it does raise the specter that some national security concerns have been raised well i i could make out that definition but that threatens to stretch national security beyond the point they lose it's real meaning nobody's suggesting that this is an agent of a foreign government door or foreign terror organization or anything else it sounds like he's basically a fog which unfortunately we have a good number of our own  unless you can tell me that something more specific than the record suggests this is something unique to be given to the to the governor the government's praga to wage war conduct foreign policy that i'm going to take him out of the national security category and treat him in a way which i think is for a legitimate concern the way suggested that your second reference the six ninety one references as someone who may well be lawfully confined in a protective fashion but as i read six ninety one it's not talking about what congress provided for in this statute is speaking more generally toward what you can constitutionally do in the form of civil commitment for example that is that the that the constitution does permit a form of civil commitment you can without being convicted of a crime be held against your will and i'm certain the state of washington as all the other states i know of has a civil commitment provision and as i read this out it is decision the court there is saying you can have a civil confinement consistent with the constitution i'm not sure what the court is saying here is that this statute passed by congress opens that door so that you you have the department of justice you the attorney general have the authority to hold otherwise removal of aliens because you perceive that threat because later when the court speaks and terms with holding it it does not have at least not explicitly a is not a problem uniquely a vietnamese making recognize that this is an absolute absolute rule that there might be cases where and individual alien may be detained the on the six month reasonable period of time for example where they have not assisted in obtaining their travel documents to return to their country so there are exceptions to that decision inside the gosse and all those exceptions relate to the actual ability to remove the supreme court is that you can hold beyond six months if there was a reasonable prospect of not quoting it accurately but if you were still fairly making was determined efforts to remove the individual that no longer appears to be an issue with regard to the individual he's not accused of doing anything to impede his removing the problem is on you know i'm confused to accept but i don't understand it to be the challenge of this recourse determination that we're no longer talking however we're not within this rule we are not going to consider terrorists or aliens who post special circumstances why that discussion and and with the attorney general's authority to promulgated regulations dealing with the immigration and nationality act the attorney general promulgated these regulations keeping i this and then i would like to say two minutes rebuttal counsel for mr tide raised that in his and his brief in response to the government's opening grades and the standards that the government set forth statute is not going to be sufficient your honor that's not known at this point i don't i would never say that it's not insufficient we don't know if that will be applied to mr tie in the way that the federal government would wanted to be applied to protect the citizenry and some of the state of washington does something about it and i'm wondering is there reason for us to make a point of stepping back and trying to to inject this this exception or the situation into the  leaving the state of washington deal with as they deal with it in other circumstances where your honor and mr time isn't and is an alien but that's final order every little so there is an immigration aspect to this case and to the responsibility to make sure that the safety of the united states is continuing and we can't just turn over to the state of washington and mr tied with no guarantees that he will go through the system as the federal government needs him to go through a group of south of us had a long criminal record your honor it's more than the danger if he was a dangerous alien and we and the federal government allowed him to go on the street and there was no mental condition or personality disorder that would show a tendency toward future violence without that honors and he was just a violent criminal as evidenced by his past criminality then yes he was under the supreme court's decision he would have to release content from detention however mr try has this mental condition or personality disorder that shows that he has a tendency toward future acts of violence and the federal government has a responsibility to to protect the united states from these future acts of violence so it's the second prize not it's not simply the first prize that we're relying on and trying to circumvent the supreme court's decision may please the court my name is jay stan so i represent twenty who is a vietnam vietnamese person who's been ordered deported with final order of the court deportation fourteen years fourteen months ago and cannot be removed to his home argument looking for an exception that doesn't exist relies totally upon section three capital a of that decision which is nothing more or less than a broad discussions of the supreme court such subset of due pro legitimate federal interest to permit federal action well first i just raised the question i'm not sure whether there might be a federalism concern here because one of those apartments issues that in the supreme court the government was repeatedly doing the same thing we've got this immigration and you know interest therefore this sort of due process jurisprudence doesn't apply to this individual it's different because we've got this immigration and this report said if you s which were they trying to extract the exception in section three a they talk about we're not disturbing the political princes power to deal with this situation what's wrong with this is we have a unilateral not be a constitutional objection to that and that would not by itself run afoul of loving us that there would be a separation of powers argument for that and there wouldn't be the author of yours regulation argument that we have you know there may or may not be this this secondary federalism concern that i'm in kansas versus hendricks there's a statute in every situation discussed about in three a where there were where there were indefinite detention or civil commitment of individuals there's a statute for indefinite on the detaining post in our government that what preserves our democracy is that we have three separate branches of government and the executive can't go out and seize people they couldn't go out and seize steel mills and youngstown sheet into bait and that can hold somebody without violating the constitution that's correct so i think approaching the argument if you're now articulating it terms of what congress has done you may be right with regard to separation of powers but but the civil commitment provision presumably could be enacted by congress without itself running afoul of the constitution and but i would say this that of congress passed section two forty one point fourteen verbatim it would be an unconstitutional law because it in no way measures up to the standards of the washington sexual predator or the kansas sexual predator lots there is no right to court appointed counsel at government expense there's no right to a court appointed expert had at government overcrowded king county jail where there is a modicum of background you know we'll keep you alive mental health treatment but one of your honors recognize that if you are in the civil commitment process there are there mean that's correct i think you need to look simply warehouse people in the in our final submissions for this supplemental excerpts of record which i had to file afterwards in motion to except that late detention quote is just designed to hold them long enough to affect their removal and for mr tide that could be his life time this flies in the face of the supreme court ju regarding statutes that authorize i think that they've held statutes there's no statutes here and without a statute it's just some simply doesn't work to begin with but if there were statute modeling to forty one point fourteen they really would need to substantive than and procedural rights invision in kansas versus hendrickson similar regimes that have been upheld by the court before the you know before it would be view both the statute and the supreme court's decision i think the court must think twice about doing that because if in order to do that the court has an additional obligation just like this court did in m which is what's just silly relied upon and the the fact that on its face two forty one point fourteen is unconstitutional and two other three other courts your honour's have recognized the language that the government relies on to allow this to allow the attorney general to make these regulations so yes this is a case of first impression on these on these specific regulations but it's not new to this court that there were going to be terrorism or special circumstances such as the instant case where the attorney general may further promulgate regulations of allowing for that consent to continue detention of certain aliens secondly it would not require a statutory and meant to allow for the continue an alien's in detention where he sees fit and this is a decision that is discretionary decision by the attorney general for which this court does not have jurisdiction to review finally to forty one point fourteen k that is his condition and his mental condition and circumstances materially change that he can move to set aside agencies terminations and that his detention should be continued needs possibly to the medical treatment that has been offered to him but he's refused he could become better his mental health could improve and he can move to set aside the prior decisions and ultimately be released from this