appealed presents two issues one of statutory construction the other a constitutional interpretation of my argument will focus predominantly on the statutory construction argument counsel for the i meet he will have five minutes of my time and will be focusing his argument on the th amendment issue presented the statutory construction issue in this case is whether congress intended section eight  controlled substances act to include the states a proper statutory construction analysis reveals that it does not and that analysis begins with the plain language of the statute the term person as it is used within that provision the controlled substances act does not define the term person and under such circumstances the united states supreme court directs that we apply a longstanding interpretive presumption that t person does not include a soldering like the state of new hampshire or its alter egos its agencies or its officials acting in their official capacities the district court made two fundamental legal errors in attempting to circumvent application of this long standing presumption st the district court treated an administrative subpoena issued under section eight hundred and seventy six dollars of the controlled substances act as a discovery subpoena issued under federal rule of civil procedure forty five dollars if there are conducted no statutory construction analysis of whether such an eight hundred and seventy six itself authorizes as opposed to a natural person like ms rico jonah's individually is the real party and interest and proceed with and the test that's been established is whether the judgment would interfere with the public administration  would compel the government to act and when specific performance is sought like in this case whether the state is the real party and interest hinges on whether the redress obtained against the officer will in practical effect be obtained through the south or the relief requested in this case can only be obtained through the state of new hampshire state law establishes the p d m p as a state health care program the state owned could you just tell me as a practical matter and hold if we agree with your position the federal government would be able to perform its function of regulating these controlled but the federal government performs the function greatly when controlled substances with in the context of the controlled substances act by interacting as hers with other sovereign entities like the states that the controlled substances act specifically carla plates cooperative arrangements for same so you're saying that if the federal government hit ask you for the records that would be different your mom is with the thing that they tried to subpoena them as provisions of the controlled substances act command of the attorney general shall robbery it doesn't mean in all cases the attorney general is going to be able to get certain information and as recently as respa sources state law said the information shall not be shared with that trump and request or a subpoena from the federal government there is there is no authority to issue the subpoena to the state govern substances that commands the attorney general to cooperate with the states to make information sharing arrangements to corroborate and investigative efforts the nature proper ration is the state as an independent sovereign or in the war it is the government the federal government is a much broader interest in the regulation of controlled substances that i'm trying to figure out and they can get the information if you're unwilling the state  unwilling and the federal government can't compel the production of the information i wrote it is a there's a couple of pieces to that in the for our contacts the state of new hampshire also has its version of a controlled drug records for schedule two through four substances it needs to present the program manager with an order based on costs and that is a limited information sharing restriction and so it doesn't contemplate and that is has to do with information sharing and mass action states and establishing the process for the provision of information under subsection the attorney general s if your interpretation of that is that the state can impose restrictions how broad is that imposition can be if i believe the imposition could be quite broad as permitted under state law would would indicate that the states could publish directions and place informational barriers and place that protect their citizens information presumably the states to are current in this effort to control drug abuse and substance abuse and diversion of controlled substances presumably those restrictions wouldn't be taken exceptionally far but they couldn't highly relevant to this situation because what you have a carpenter is a reasonable expectation of privacy and a digital product all of your whereabouts over extended period of time and what you have within th prescription drug records you cannot obtain that particle of information at least not here easily by attempting to visit the c v s down the street and the rite aid on the corner and the end in the pharmacy down the rock even though their records may be open to agents of the government to look at if they walk in that building how do you reconcile actually the the provision in  this statute that that says that the data will not be turned over to law enforcement except based on a warning issued on probable cause but when it comes to dispensary says he just said law enforcement to work out one hundred dollars plus piracies in the state and put together that analysis that could be done at a carpenter that's exactly what the u s supreme court rejected you could follow somebody around four hundred  such things i did panic disorders trendsetters that as testosterone would push and see substance abuse disorder treatment and much more are now i guess the obvious privacy interest in that information to the federal government operates to arguments the closely regulated industry exception what i think are perhaps just group positions on the two statutes you you have a way of reconciling it which is different i think that's right and read as you know we're not arguing the statutory interpretation question but i think you pirate might apply to red search doesn't mean that every other search related area is exempt with the concern be satisfied if there were an opportunity for you in even in a particular case for the patient whose it if it works ok if notice were given i thought he just said it might be a different situation of notice we're given an opportunity to object but here if there's a reasonable substitute for that that's what i'm asking so pervasive government surveillance of a person this isn't prescription drug information is no doubt personal but it's a data point it's a piece of information it's a piece of information like a bank record it's a piece of information like the telephone number she dial justice roberts call those items in the card or personal they are personal prescription drug information is personal that doesn't change the application of a better party doctrine the reality is a person the record is the is the order from the doctor to the pharmacy to provide controlled substances to a person that is a commercial and prescription records and they're sometimes used as one way to let them pick their own label prescription drugs that's a heavily regulated industry portion for reasons that we all understand government has for a long time said we need t to stand up where the flows controlled substances going because all the risks are all too familiar with and that's the reason for the heavily regulated nature of the pharmacy the drug part which is different than the medical records part i'm not here to align on whether you need a search warrant no records but i can say that's not this case and to the extent of grief use the term medical records is an umbrella i think that confuses rather than clarifies what we're talking years and in this day and age where the practice of medicine is so much pharmacologically based from the patient's perspective i know the wasp in place for a long time quite familiar with that fact medical condition and i guess this gets to the question of what a person with pride because i can say the same thing about what i signed up for a life insurance policy and i have to fill out a very understand but the problem is you have to turn it over to a rd party when do you think they're good for this and they're all hope that they don't or don't expect that they will is not the answer but there seems to be some recognition that the world has phone which you are not doing voluntarily now anyway the exact same voluntary army be it with me a rejected this is a well i'm not going to be able to use the the pharmacy system because i need to protect my privacy the supreme court said you know maybe some people but unfortunately dealing with the medical system requires you to expose information information that is shared turned over to insurance companies week and we're right in my recollection is that in those cases the court actually said one of the privacy interests being invaded here it's the fact that a cell phone contains information such as where prescription drugs somebody stick that with a window to your whole world that we take your phone and now what we've done by a mere problem without a warrant hitting a few by and opening it up is we now have about you that is it wanting with the supreme court's consume carpenter the surveillance this is not the surveillance this is a discrete category of personal information like financial record but you know voluntary as judge jury and might have pointed out is seems to me to be a somewhat squishy word to me that the potential calamitous effects of not getting a prescription with respect to standing down if the c e o of the state official or the state not make the arguments that it's made how would somebody object to this  rights cannot be vicariously asserted well the reason i was beat is because you actually can't do the whole analysis without the subjective component which is individualized so that's the best difficulty which is why it's not really question is with the person here to say they have an interest subjective interest in this information you really can't do the f