a transfers under the illinois emergency management agency act what do you think of order was plainly authorized by section seventy eight of the act which states and the governor may control the movement of individuals in a disaster area and well was that even if the act did authorize the governor's executive order the emergency powers under the act can never be used to alter any mandatory procedural obligation on any government agency including in other words they contend that government must continue to operate as though no pandemic existed no matter what the governor acts executive or excuse the emergency powers that conflicts with the acts of expressed purpose to confer upon the governor powers necessary to protect public safety during a disaster is significantly hinders his ability to decide whether the normal operation government must be altered to protect the public and simply the legislature did not invoked to exemptions under the act in section three st section three c they argue that county sheriffs are police forces under the language of that except exemption and that therefore the governor could not here for just a nd i want to make sure i'm clear on what you're indicating to justice turner so you are like you need this to the situation room at the trial court level a judge has sentenced someone the apartment corrections they don't immediately gul to the department of corrections they have to normally go back to the county jail their house there and tell trains or it is a rankings is that what you're referring to correct your honor and in normal circumstances when there's no quarantine or testing procedures in place the middest does not say the inmate must be transferred in x number of days or immediately it just sort of the inmate to the custody then under normal circumstances there is a period of this is this is the clerk just as holder why just called me by phone and said her computer has shut down as you can see she's not on the screen and she has a technical difficulties remind you have to take a recess  occupancy of ideas the facilities control the movement and mace there was no thought to prevent the spread of covert nineteen gov need to restrict the free flow of events back and forth from one community to the next and to  your honor is made some important findings in that order regarding specifically section seventy eight also section three c because largely the basis for the that order was the fact that  that there are four factors that we're supposed to be looking at for the primary in johnston and i'm wondering did your pre address the fact there are no adequate remedy yet law but no damages for this and to the extent the plaintiffs were arguing that they could not transfer inmates under the prior executive order damages would not solve that problem so i think to the extent i did that the existence of an adequate remedy at one reply brief because plaintiffs brought up this notion that there is a financial hardship on the county is by continuing to house inmates and in that circumstance that might be something enforcement's core functions rather than its incidental activities and mr grip this i'm sorry i know you've only got a little bit of time that i did have another question on that i've been thinking about that and what the statute is saying is there any do you think there is any indication that possibly what the statue refers to not altering or changing those responsibilities is it possibly talking about ok we can't make the police fire force construction is it possible that what they're talking about that is possible your honor i think also so the important thing is to view that exemption in the context of the act as a whole right so the act as a whole designed to protect the public in a disaster law enforcement firefighting forces units of the armed forces listed receive all protect the public from a disaster so i think largely without exit and should exist for us to say police firefighters should not need to worry about performing their normal functions protecting the public in an emergency situation nothing  thought i think your honor that it aligns with the purpose of the act and also the exemption itself because those are three public safety agencies that together read together the best reading is that it's designed to a lot and protect that the majority of those numbers and in a response sent to us by the attorney general's office when we had written them a letter that we sent to them on august twenty says sixty asking questions regarding their procedures the response back was sense the policeman area injunction was issued at that time it was one thousand three hundred now that was on the twenty six we sent them a rather lengthy letter that included a lot of attachments with yesterday ideas to me the attorney general's office never got back to us they have not answered any of our question so you think it's your counsel do you think it would be appropriate for this court to which because i think it has gone to i don't think without it i think we would have been shut down and in one of in the information we sent to the a g each day after this day was issued they should email to all the sheriffs saying they were entered the next day i believe it was in at eleven twenty two am they sent an e mail at everyone saying they were not going to be accepting intakes on monday and so we had that in between i believe it was actually in between the time of the the national stay and the revised i mean i don't think i  we we would but again you know we would be in that situation where we're not nobody is going out and you know i can address what the actual normal procedures are for delivery of someone to idea see in a non cove it setting what has what happened before and there really was no procedure it was all you had to do was call i d e o see by three o'clock the day before you want to bring in the eight tell them who you were bringing and then the next day you brought them there was no procedure and if there was a delay between the court ordering them committed and then being taken it was usually a delay the sheriff had decided so that instead of transporting one person a day you could be transporting you know six or seven or more  interesting and would take care of the governor's concerns regarding quarantining and testing and would be totally within their purview because it would it occurs after they've accepted the prisoners they have been under their own memo once they take it in in may from a county jail they are testing them and quarantining them for fourteen days and then at the end of that fourteen days they testing them again before they move them into general population so that they are doing the testing on their side what they have now does they have made the testing a condition of us even brain and we are still having the situation where we have on their side they're still requiring us to do it to even bring them and they're rejecting anyone that has an we can't do that for they're not taking my point your honor would be that they have a procedure in place and they're soft you know that the concerned that they you know they're raising that you know we need this testing before anyone comes in they're taking care of that on their side after the person has already been accepted right this court is right the sheriff can just not release somebody you know dios he says we're not taking them the sheriff just can't say you're free to go if they've been sentenced to the department of corrections and so what happens is is the sheriff has t in logan county there was a specific situation in logan county where inmates were turned over to corrections they tested positive on a quick test were turned back over the sheriff and i believe those inmates now they filed a law suit d naming the sheriff and the a codefendant of the sheriff says the illinois department of corrections so now we're on both sides with them where they were alleged because the warden of the jail and signed don't know what they follow up and they filed in federal court but that's the very thing that could happen now i would save my clients the sheriffs the reason they are not releasing people it's because they're trying to protect the public these people some of these people have been sent you know some of them are dangerous felons they're not going to release them into the public so i assume you would agree with me that it is normally not the responsibility of the share to when it when someone has committed to corrections the state is exercising its coercive police powers and the statute says they cannot give that up to anybody and they don't they cannot give that up to the that technically the preliminary injunction might not be appropriate and that would be our thinking but what would be what then what if anything can we say  think the st thing would be is that currently there are still matters in this case pending in the circuit court there was the depart the defendants had filed a motion to dismiss is still pending we have not had any hearings on the merits of them and secondly there was evidence that was put in after the issuance of e o fifty but try it and after the hearing on the prove absolutely that we would win our case we had to just raise a fair question that we could now i think if it goes back down be upset the court below could easily modify the injunction based upon new evidence based emitted by the defendants and necessary and i believe and the court below had specifically i don't want to use the word admonished but it's pacifically directed the defendants and provided them guidance for what to do and had given them the opportunity to have that heard on august th and told them at the end of the hearing and we quoted it directly in the brief for that reason the judge told them you said you know i'm a segment we'll consider modifying this but that was not the route they took and so d you know the court below is hinted that it is willing to look at that evidence and if this court feels it's appropriate they could put it back they could remand it back to the lower court to look you know what could this court do to keep it alive that evidence was not put in the evidence that was in is based upon the evidence that the lower court heard on the policeman any injunction had the plaintiffs raised a fair still an abuse of discretion because it would be to no review if the court if the court below had only made findings of law but the core a low in deciding whether or not we had raised  mandamus had to make findings of fact and i prefaced those findings of fact in the brief i don't want to take your time i see my time is up but i think that you know you this would still be a review of an abus discretion and whether or not the court's decision was reasonable oh it doesn't necessarily mean this court has to agree with the course decision by law but mere disagreement is not an abuse of discretion very well thank day before the circuit courts hearing on the renewal junction so there was never an opportunity for those procedures to actually work themselves out or county sheriffs and ideo see to confer and figure out how this process is going to work in this unprecedented situation and so there's really no basis to conclude that ideas even of accident if that's what the supreme court concluded there also was no finding by the supreme court of such action it would be entirely speculative for the concerns about the practical effects should give way again that's issues that are worked out between idea c and friendships all the time these are independent government bodies they have to work out problems between one another in a lot of circumstances and and i think that had a circuit court given these procedures enough time to take effect below before entering the preliminary injunction that would have been the case in the circuit court as well but the supreme court really jumped the gun on the finding of irreparable injury based on there's nothing in that executive order that suggests that they need to housed inmates indefinitely or that for the entire term of their sentence but yes it does impose new responsibilities on county sheriffs and as just a statement pointed out in his question that's the nature of the emergency management agency the governor has the authority to control the movement of these inmates and the occupancy of facilities in the state and so he necessarily has to be able to say how can we do this safely how can we do project so even if you know normal circumstances transfers happen much more quickly the existence of the act in the broad delegation of authority to the governor in an emergency  mr stewart brought up the fact that yes he is doing its own testing and who has the capacity to test better all those are decisions that should be made on the ground by the governor or i do you see sheriff's under the act it's really