limit i can hear you continue my talk when i'm trying to ask you a question so let me ask you the question where i didn't i was start laying that out for a little bit i'm sorry that i did where in the complain so that would be  and so in every count that we allege a property interest and we allege the constitutional provision that requires the state to review those licenses we also allege in the complaint that it and that at the statute that i provided was not the default license provision it's just that provision that provides the overall framework for the apartment ranting these licenses to proceed while the procedures that license itself once you meet the procedural criteria you know but you said the property interest is in those procedures well in that sense any property interest is going to be in a procedure because they're  one of those in if the if the state law in question provides subjective criteria to evaluate against the person who's supplying then an applicant in a sort of procedural due process rights in the end to think that they're lying for whether it's a government if they met certain objective criteria such as price performance capacity to perform and in that case the court said because the better manual restricted the state's options of who they could she was based on his objective criteria the person arguing that if state fall provided certain procedures the same they don't use the word entitlement there's these procedures are the ones that don't plow before you can fire somebody with left say one of the procedures is that the hearing shall be conducted within ten days and it turns out the department ever gets around to having the hearing until twenty so you're not saying that the that's a federal due process violation that page ceded the time period for the hearing set out in the procedures or it depends on the nature of the state law that gives you the right to the procedure so  precedent craft that cause of action is indication of a state law property interest in having a hearing within that time and if it's all right with the core of like to address the case on this point is barbie johnson decided by the square in two thousand and nineteen at seven hundred and eighty eight federal antics to ninety eight where the court made that distinction and stated that where a person was not given a hearing at all before their seasons supporting your own there mamak so while mckinney itself specifically distinguished itself from center might be birch which is a supreme court decision that governs these claims and that's it four hundred and ninety four is it your position that you need with wire at the very least wait for it decision would look to the department's concession based on florida law that when a group of people are are competing for a limited resource they aren't title to a comparative hearing to determine who is the most qualified person to receive that  license in any case what we're saying is that the state did not adhere to the minimum requirements of due process and considering or more actually failing to consider delphi operates application and i think this would be a different story if the florida department of health had just hold off on issuing any licenses whatsoever but that hasn't been the case over fifteen individuals and six legend complaint received licenses despite the claims that the license process was not open so our contention  if the state is going to follow the scheme for some people it needs to follow it for others and anyway since given seems to another organization that applied while claiming that the application process closed fabro amounts to they're entitled to the license under the default provision they're claiming title meant under the basic stache or scheme but the default provision is more of an alternative argument so those six applicants were competing for the same licenses  had the day they got a hearing and you get they got a license and then week i'm sorry they got a hearing the result of which was they got a last correct correct i read somewhere in one of the briefs that it was part of  that just off the wall i think we don't know the justification for giving those licenses out the department claims that per a complaint the department claims that those individuals were not qualified judge to give me some leeway here i'd like to hear your response to questions i have no about the supremacy clause and the fact that contro substances act makes this a crime and the appropriations rider doesn't make it a non crime and the can c s a also specifically says there is no property interest contra but it seems to me like and this is a big deal i think that what you're asking to do is for the federal courts through the due process clause to help you further your interest in violating federal law because you're a you're in effect attempting are conspiring mung yourself and the folks who are on your hand it doesn't make it a non crime so i'm not aware of any situation in which a federal court has held that the due process clause in title was a lit to an injunction that would help further its interest in violating federal law that's a question so what we're seeking specifically dogs there ever were we need to raise money so we gotta we're going to legalize dogs and we're going to take the proceeds from the dog's life and build better humane society  shelters that's against federal law it's a federal crime now would you say that if your client was interested in opening one of those dogfighting rains then he could go into a federal court and say i have a property interest under state law and having one of those and having not application receipt and therefore order the state to let me do that so what our position is is that if florida law treats one class of individuals who hold a license differently from another class of individuals it doesn't matter what that license is for whether it's a cut hair to serve liquor that no no no no no given a hearing are get a license he's about to lose it now you telling me your client can come into federal court and say enjoined him to treat me fairly and my effort if there is a certain class of people who are subject to state prosecution as a result of having that license and a certain class of people who aren't that whether the whether you call that license should be subject to the minimum requirements of due process whatever eps i thought that was your position probably but i just want to make sure possessing an immunity from prosecution is not equivalent to actually performing the act and you know i just think that we're not dealing with child pornography here we're not dealing  dogfighting and the reason that we're sitting at is because there is a difference in opinion in the public and in members of congress regarding medical marijuana so that's that's our position on that issue