don't know how to do it and at this stage they simply do not know how to do it that's true your honor they said that but that doesn't mean your honor that it's impossible the district court found that it was impossible well does it matter whether it's impossible or where they simply don't know how to do it how can we how can we order the government to do something they don't know how to do well your honor st of all to back up this case has a very long history it was the government's decision not ours to choose to raise tech tell feature as their preferred method of accessibility there are other more commonly used methods such as changing the size of currency except they could have done there but they just said no we don't want to do that because it's too expensive and now ten years ten years after they decided that they were going to use it res tactile feature all of a sudden they come up and say we don't know how to do it but yet if they don't know how to do it your honor i would submit to the court why are they saying in the status report filed with this court just yesterday that they expect to do it by two thousand and twenty six certainly there is some inconsistency the around the world are struggling with that effort unsuccessfully well your honor there's a mixed bag of opinion on that frankly there are many people including cummins allison who said that they have they manufactured the a t m machines in canada that are used in canada it's in the record and they say it was successful they're able to use this equipment on a t m machines on existing banknote machinery without a problem and without any undue expense they're able to use the or raise tactile feature i don't see if we're able to use it in canada why they can't use it here but more importantly than there your honor you know the government's position is that they expect to do it this is their statement they expect to do it in two thousand and twenty six and frankly if they say they can't do it then they're the ones who should be moving or a modification of the injunctive order not me the fact is your honor it's one thing to say you can't do it right now it's not the same thing to say you can't do it in two thousand and twenty six those are two different things and tire follow up on what you just said because it's not clear to me that you're wrong when you say maybe the government should be filing a motion to modify the injunction this is as you pointed out a case with a long history and one of the original court holdings findings was that the blind lack meaningful access to paper currency and our court the d c circuit has agreed with that part the d c circuit has also said that an accommodation is required accommodation does not impose an undue burden that's what the rehabilitation act requires an accommodation if it does not impose and burn our courthouse burger said that increasing the size of the numbers on the bills and making the colors jump out more is not and on to burden the so far so good but we've also said that that alone does not provide meaningful access to the currents and i think that the government knew the district court and the two panel decisions from the d c circuit are all in agreement on those four things now here's where i think it gets a little trickier than the circuit court has never held i don't think please correct me if i'm wrong this court has never held that there is an accommodation that does not imposing on do burden and that does provide meaningful access and assuming that this court has not held that there is an accommodation that does not impose one to burden and that does provide mean access i'm not convinced that there is such an accommodation and if there isn't then the injunction ought to get modified to say that the government does not have an obligation to provide meaningful facts of this particular case the government hasn't even approached and making an undue burden argument and under the burden argument would be based on cost estimates it would be based on financial issues there's no cost estimates in the record that it's only cost factors that prevent the treasury department from hiring enough people to solve the problem but it's not just a cost factor there are limit run it but that's not the same thing as to say and i just want to rip you know big question with you but i just don't see how saying it's not passed if it can't do it right at this particular nd means that it's impossible especially in  just doesn't make sense you're out of the record just doesn't add up it just doesn't  well you know the government could have asked in this case they could have said look you know we want to keep the record open a little bit longer to see what we can do and what we can't do they could have said that but no the government said we want the decision on the existing record right now we asked the council last the court to keep it open longer but no they want to do decision right now on whether or not as soon as possible and they got a decision the district court judge obliged circumstances the suit was brought eighteen years ago if i remember right the district court's original declaration declaratory judgment was two thousand and eight and might be off by a couple years but technology with regard to how we use money how all people use money those with a disability and those who don't have a disability has changed  i did tried to think this morning how many times in the last month i've used cash and i caught up with the historical because i went through the same process as i was think i don't i don't i won't speak for judge silberman and how many times he has used cash in the last month but but i've used it once in the past three thousand and thirty one days i've used it once now i know that not everyone is in that situation  not everyone can get a bank account not everyone can get a debit card but bank accounts and debit cards do not have the same costs and credit requirements that credit cards do  i think your position and i'm not saying i disagree with it i think your position is that the rehabilitation act requires that so long as people who are able to see have access to paper currency there's a federal i'm not saying i disagree with you but i am just kind of wondering you know eighteen years into this tell me tell me why debit cards don't  ask you what you're using but you know i just listed all your honor i'd like you to know that at this very moment your tax dollars are being used to build a brand new currency facility in maryland and the reason they're building that brand new currency facility in maryland is that the government expects that the use of cash is going to increase over the next ten years and that's in the record of this case so is my position is you know if the government wants to move away from cash then fine that's fine but they're not doing that they intend to increase the supply of cash that's why they're building a brand new facility at the cost of tens or hundreds of millions of dollars i don't know what in maryland and then koopman to the one in fort worth because they anticipate an increase in cash usage so this is all but in terms of specter but the real question  earing impaired isn't there an easy alternative using credit cards or debit cards well your honor agree with we can't really rely on that it was a government has figures are in the record of the case but i think of believe it or not this is surprising but it's from the federal reserve board i believe almost sixty percent of the people in this country especially poor people do not have credit cards or debit cards we think we all do of course but there are a lot of very poor people especially poor people who are older and who are living just at the poverty line frankly that just don't have the they can't get them so i would think that you know before we go down that road you your honor you want more that's possible your honor i just don't know it's just now i could only argue what we've gotten fired and i agree i agree on the government has the government has given these audible readers to the vision impaired and they have very serious drawbacks and our own colleague u one and says that and i'm sure this is the case with others that when it's audible to people around that he's got of one hundred dollars bill or whatever that huge security risk and added to that is the fact that the vision impaired don't know who was around when this audible reader says whatever it says about you are handing out one hundred dollars bill or that is one hundred dollars bill that's an interesting point all right mr that he will give you a couple minutes to reply mr w completed the testing the extensive testing required to assure ourselves that a feature will satisfy all the criteria we do we have done over the years a great deal of testing and have arrived at the point of project we need to finish the test do everything required to work sure but when we do have a have an idea that it's going to work you have an idea that it's going to work but you don't know at this point we have not completed the the final testing required to make sure our selves that the future is in the education that it works with all of the other security features on the redesign no it's after we have every expectation that this is going to work these that these tests are to confirm that and then be able to equitable to to impose on everyone in the country every individual every business on force and the burden of the increased risk of counterfeiting in whatever marginal period of delay there is as the history of this litigation has showed there are lots of contingencies here and everything is dependent on testing and you know the secretary's statutory obligation is to ensure that the notes are our best to protect against counterfeiting which great familiarity the record that the department the treasury and its staff have been working in good faith to comply with the current injunction i certainly don't deny that the process of developing actel feature has been frustrating for everybody involved it's taken  i'm not didn't say principly i'm not over partner to do this they just can't do it the the court did say that they did offer that as an additional reason why modification should be granted in addition to   you know if any and any money has been spent by the treasury on deciding what person to put on the ten dollars or twenty dollars bill made to the i and i understand but part of why the american council for the blind is i think understandably frustrated with is that this suit was filed eighteen years ago they still don't have access to paper currency they the rehabilitation act has been interpreted to statutorily require that the treasury department provide them with access to paper currency of course statutes also require the treasury department to make the security secure from counterfeiting and that takes time and money both of those things take time and money but to my knowledge there's not a statute that says treasury must as a matter of federal law change the picture of who is on the ten dollars who's on the twenty dollars bill so i guess my question is why has treasury spent time and money on who should be on the bill instead of spending that time in that money on the security features and the accessibility for the disabled community features the treasury a statue or torah lee required to do largely been a result of the fact st that developing attack healthy trees in incredibly challenging as it has no right i get that mr when they come from the briefing and i don't doubt that it's a challenge to the tactile future as i said it in the beginning i'm not sure frankly that you're ever going to be able to do that but you would agree with the logic at least that if an agency spends time and money on one dollar thing that means it has less time and money to spend on another thing  redesign you know if you look at the rationale for the delay of the security redesign it's largely fictitious they say they can't that the delay will be to the fit due to the fact that they'll be required to add resources for the purpose of d including the r t f on the legacy tw in addition i may also add that this is a cost based argument they be pieces we only have so much time to do everything well then you know they can add more people they can add more staff they can add more contractors yes that cost money but not withstanding the explicit instruction of this quote re mandiant for additional cost estimates they didn't give any cost estimates as to how much it do this security redesign and i may also add on that point that we basically big the district what we urge the district court are your honor we understand the government is claiming confuse ability so then can't we just feasibility and the gist of judge refused that order and that seems to me very unreasonable we could have obviated this entire litigation not been here had the district court just gone back to the government and said well what exactly did nominations are you claiming are infeasible by two thousand and twenty six and had they done that and had they given us something then we would even be here today but i thought there i thought their position was that all good nominations the nominations but but the government made a claim of infeasibility here that that's what i needed i thought their position was it is infeasible with respect to all due nominations to de couple the security from the accessibility no no no your i don't believe that well that's what the district court concluded but that's not what the government argued with the government argued is that it is in feasible to produce all denominations with the r t f by two thousand and twenty six they said they didn't save though which to nominations in other words they said we can't do it with all denominations but they left open the clear implication that they could do it with at least one less than who more than one that that all means we could we can't do all implies we could do less than that exactly that's ok or has the intent best way we read it and the government more or less conceded in their brief that before this court that they could have the r t f to more than one denomination by two thousand and twenty six right because there are no more questions than gentlemen your case is submitted thank said all or nothing what about his argument that you should be required to deal with those nominations very few can do the response your honor is and thirty nine of the record the entire sum and substance of the delay claim is based on that single paragraph and what does mr all of her say he says d that any effort to pursue affixing in r t f to the legacy the legacy ten dollars note would divert resources and therefore cause a delay we're not asking anymore that they even include the r t f on the legacy ten operative all right well we did you call an end to these proceedings or we'll go back and forth forever all right gentlemen thank you your