grant a religious exemption from the federal contraceptive mandate this is a question of enormous importance for the little sisters of the corps who have been seeking just such an exemption since twenty thirteen the little sisters took their case all the way to the supreme court and the supreme court directed the parties to arrive at an alternative approach that alternative approaches what pennsylvania is seeking to enjoin in this case it pennsylvania pennsylvania seeks to strip the little sisters of their regulatory exemption and undermine perhaps overturn the little sisters existing injunction the little sisters have a protected the interest in but the regulatory exemption and in their and therefore invalid for that reason and also that they were inconsistent with the statutory language in looking at interest no aren't we confined to just those claims argument from the district court decision if they determine that yes indeed the i have bars are invalid because they didn't that they were read and they were created without the proper this point in this case what is that issue and not the other potential constitutional claims that the plaintiffs had in their original complaint because if be invalid probably this case will go away but there's rock the little sister they're not seeking to intervene merely for the purposes of the currently ongoing appeal they are seeking to intervene in the case and so they are concerned about all of the claims that pennsylvania is bringing that i think response one response to is that the district court in issuing its nationwide injunction against these exemptions did not merely rule on the noti comment issue as you said also that the federal government had access acted contrary to law part of the analysis that the district court in caged in and that i'm sure pennsylvania will be asking this court to engage in i the little sisters are concerned about with a very circuit appeal is that that appeal is going to be heard and argued without their participation and then the third circuit is going to be rendering an opinion on the cases that the supreme court vacated in subic it was one of the cases that was combined with the little sisters case before the supreme court and the district court we would say were initially held that it was still valid by the now vacated holding of  college and so it seems to me and i think it is apparent from the record and from the district court's opinion below that this court is going to be asked to weigh in on number one what the civic order means gave to the federal government what conditions it placed on the federal government and number two whether the religious freedom restoration act compels an exemption for the little sisters of the poor and other groups like them  lost by the time the intermediaries get to bat in the late innings the little sisters want to be able to participate in this case and under rule twenty four are entitled to criticize paid in this case from the beginning so that they can help to heighten the arguments so that they can shape the decisions so that if this case if this court decides on this case and it is then appealed to the supreme court we're not in a position where the supreme court is revisiting the central question in subic and being asked to construe as you make without the little sisters an injunction and say case over everyone go home the little sisters granted the supreme court granted the little sisters protection from the fines an injunction that the government could not find them and then remanded the cases back to the was to try and resolve the pending litigation and that but he should remains pending before the tenth circuit said a little sisters are in a position where the supreme court they took their haste and suppose court the supreme court said  explore an alternative approach the government has now come up with an alternative approach in pennsylvania is seeking to enjoin that and so alternately happens with the government exemption whether the i r s constitutionally is a contract like interest here i mean i took part of you if you could be was with the i authorise the preamble recital say that they're designed to result a bunch of lawsuits and name uses is one of them but is their interest in receiving a complete regulatory exemption from the mandate something they have sought since twenty thirteen the second interest is the interest in maintaining enforcing the injunction that they were seeing from the supreme court  the face of a challenge that might narrowly construed their injunction or alternately seek to go to the supreme court and overturn that injunction and this court's intervention cases have not been limited only to situations where there is a injunction that the little sisters hold against it and in defending its side of the lawsuit with the little sisters that has not been settled i also want to know that the little sisters if they are able to intervene plan to make arguments that the government has not yet made to compel them to make these these new habit i advise an exhibit require them to make these exemptions but they have not been willing to admit that their prior regulation was actually unconstitutional the little sisters believe that it is the little sisters also believe that the government does not have the power to regulate third party administrators in the way it did in the previous mandate and that is something that is carried over as an optional feature in the current mandate and the little sisters take it broader view rules and tyree but there is no way there's no logical reason that the governments need to defend the entire rules were there for make it last vigorous in its defense of the rules undermine subic that would change the scope of the previous accommodation where the exemption we have simply challenged these two rules several no matter what and this is this is under a district court correctly found no matter what the because if it's not a complete permanent injunction it's just gives the parties time to work out a settlement or resolution in the air force if they're not a final settlement there at least the way station as your opponent put it to the final settlement so it it seems odd to suggest that there that this is all really irrelevant they can just rest on their walls for subic when the whole point of this is pick injunction that this decision goes away the government simply as things stand now cannot find the little sisters i was with they could not find them previously for separate reasons but they now have the additional protection of zebedee which says  awful right yes that's right and includes a provision or i had to teach right the little sisters to opt out of the self certification process well there are no specific provisions that would be presumably the government would federal government wage go back to the drawing board we hope proceed through notice and comment rule making and i generally issue new rules that are the federal government says you know what we've got other things to do with our time and we're not interested in this issue anymore then they are up sorry but no the sisters have the protection of the supreme court to created they not be fined so there's a bigger picture problem here for you to be sure that's right we have to be sure that that reading all the tenth circuit injunction it's just an opportunity to speak it's permanent involving the government there is hypothetical bat elected officials may be replaced they may change that's true in all these cases the courts still find that there's the presumption that where the government is charged with defending a policy especially when it's a policy that that government agency promulgated and this was the court's observation of the rizzo case they are presumed to be adequate to that task in fact who chrysler well both of those cases are consistent and what they say the government the defense of poverty agency that defends a policy is presumed adequate to defend and virgin islands you had the government challenging thank you just three quick points the first one is on standing mr fisher said that in our interview we're seeking to reject the entire case we do believe that the court should reject pennsylvania's entire case under article three because we cars i think it is worth noting that when pennsylvania was arguing before the district court and was arguing irreparable harm if this is not in the appendix but using the word court record it docket eight dash two pages forty one f morning to this is pennsylvania is brief in support of its motion for a preliminary injunction but pennsylvania did there was it listed several other mandate challengers including some of those who were with the little sisters parties to the zuma case before the supreme court it listed those groups located in so they knew and said that because those groups were located within its bounds they showed proof that pennsylvania was going to be harmed by these i have thoughts this gets into my second point which is that pennsylvania's case is designed to undermine and i think minimum to get the courts to weigh in on exactly what to do means you see this in what they argued in their motion propeller injunction you see it in their complaint arguing that we're her does not compel exemptions for groups like the little sisters of the poor arguing that such exemptions are invalid per se under the establishment clause because that privilege religious interests or other interests arguing that such exemptions are invalid per se under the equal protection clause because they impact a regulation that was designed to benefit women i don't see how pennsylvania can make those claims and then argue that the little sisters interests are not at stake by something which will not only invalidate the current i have crossed but tire the government's hands in future room makings and impact the little sisters ability to receive a final ministry pennsylvania has asked the courts to construe it in a way that would still require the government to try and reach out and regulate third party administrators the little sisters are concerned that even in the face of an injunction that protects them connection by express scripts little sisters bigger express scripts is a connoisseur benefits manager that helps to administer the little sisters plan the government has indicated that express scripts may be regulated in a third party administrator and the express scripts is a secular company it's not party to the little sisters class action it's an existing case the little sisters also have concerns about collateral attack if pennsylvania were successful in receiving a ruling that it violates the establishment cost to exempt religious groups from this name and date they would be concerned about an intent to go back and revisit their injunction if a legal basis for it has been removed  i believe these arguments are wrong and i believe they ought to be foreclosed but that is what pennsylvania is seeking to do in this action and that is why the little sisters have a significant protected the interests that may be affected or impaired as a practical matter that the government could adequately represent the little sisters in this case i believe that the district court misapplied this court's precedents if injured in any growth and class in its determination of the little sisters injunction motion