right i think we've cleared out enough at this point our second case for this morning is mccann against brady mr pasta suit for violating center mccann a mystery daniel's first amendment rights and fourteen member a member writes under the constitution by expelling senator mccain from minority caucus and depriving him of taxpayer legislative resources which are required by the two all members of the minority caucus who serve on committees center mccann and mr mcdaniel respectfully asked this court reversed the district court for two reasons first violations me ask you this hypothetical i understand that illinois law defines the people in the majority carcas as all those circuit to monitor the expenditures inside the illinois house and senate the general assembly and senate or her representative do we want to say oh you know you didn't give enough for district work to this person and you didn't get enough i don't know it seems like a very strange role to ask the courts to undergo the only time this court would have to monitor or analyze the violation with respect to other situations under which this might come up i don't know what the cause of action would be other than perhaps statutory violations but there is not a other than the requirement to provide staff resources to all minority caucus members who serve on committee there's no specific statutory requirement or otherwise to allocate a certain percentage of funds to any representative in either house so i don't know position that that decision would still be administrative and not legislative so if that were those other resources were reduced as a result of or in retaliation for constitutionally protected activity we think that this court would be able to review those as well you know i can't get out of my head looking at this whether it's a bill analysis or timelines it strikes me that the most common thing that political parties do majority minority is they went when they are in control of a house or a legislature are they make life difficult for their opponents they  our hearings at times are inconvenient or maybe they don't share timelines certainly i get things i'm not saying that's elevated but i'm saying that that's reality and so it's very hard for me to see why the do for him and putting to one side whatever you can do with publicly available resources that he can't legislate as well but doesn't that show precisely why this is legislative why it belongs inside the legislative immunity doctoring couple of points in response to that question again regardless of whether it's the mechanics a member of the republican party or conservative party he's still a member of the minority caucus and i with add that sentiment member of the republican party at the time of deprivation now with respect to the point about whether or not this is just political hardball or five definition of activity it's not worth for two reasons number one beyond simply making what difficult this impacts on mccann's ability to represent his constituents by not knowing when posts are taking place by not hey i'm not getting full access to everything and that's inhibiting my ability represent my constituents especially compared to other members of my caucus who can do it better when it's constitutionally motivated but i thought render other assistance to the members of that party on such committees as may be designated so this wouldn't be the first time we've encountered legislative language that isn't one hundred percent consistent across the board does decided he wanted to run as the conservative party may not have formally tendered a letter of right of resignation to republicans but republicans thought they were being disloyal to gov round her and you know they just said you're not part of our club anymore not very political it's not kind of the whole way we run legislatures the effort the language of the statute would indicate that with respect to parties however because it uses the word party yeah correct but governor as the party candidate there were only the democratic party and republican party which is perhaps why the statue speaks in those terms but based on what we've actually voting rights context the rules for getting on the ballot if you're a libertarian or if you're a conservative if your green party person if you're whatever else you might be are more onerous because there's a desire on the part of the state not to clutter up the ballot with a million people there are actually quite a few people on the gubernatorial ballot this time round and again with the statutory language the way it is center mccann was a member of the republican party at the time of the deprivations so body to mediate that disagreement in this case i think we are because of the constitutional implications and because we're going to say who's a bonafide republican recognizing that doctrine is rarely use it that's that's not an issue that we're going to submit to a jury the question here from legislative immunity purposes whether the services that your client was cut off from receiving are quintessentially legislative services that the bill supports and access actual sand and and that sort of thing like those are quintessential still participate in the legislative process the integrity part of the legislative process as defined by legislative community but center bradys action and hid his ability to to do that in a way that affects his ability to the court i represent senator brady legislative immunity is a foundational principle that protects legislative independence and preserves the separation of powers by shielding individual legislators and their its from suit for their legislative acts in this case plaintiffs are challenging senator brady's discretionary decision to distribute as minority leader to distribute staff assistance among the senators in his caucus pursuing noya law legislative immunity bars those claims because sen brady perform a legislative act when he decided how to allocate this legislative resource among individual legislators so let me ask you actually i just understood your posture to say that he's not arguing constructive it fiction from the legislature from the state senate so that's helpful but in today's world is it really possible for somebody responsiblity to function  legislator research records bureau which provides help in drafting bills and he also has publically available resources but then there's also the secondary amount of support that to twenty and it gets divided in half first by general assembly and senate and then it gets divided in half again majority minority so the minority is actually on a per capita basis getting a little bit more impact statement financial impact that includes a lot of different information and some of which is going to be is necessarily going to be strategic so for example like i think it was chief judge woods example where if you had a member of the socialist level the congressional research service what kind of bag expert analysis that sort of thing that would be nonpartisan economic analysis impact whatever but you're saying this is not like that because it's actually it's done from the republican party's perspective political system where the senate minority leader has the authority to use resources to achieve his particular objectives and you know organize different bills across to different senators and legislators  dispute that senator brady has a significant amount of discretion in a lot in deciding how these resources are allocated and if senator mccain wanted to bring a challenge against the very same just that you violated state law independent him some sort of to an individual staff assistant that part that i don't think would be protected by legislative immunity but when he needs it senator to senator and he's deciding which resources go to which senator that's something that falls within legislative immunity and i do want useful guidance it's all provide useful guide cerner because what it really gets to is that what the courts of there is that when you are talking about the internal workings of the senate and the allocation of internal resources among the different senators the purpose of the community become very clear there because you have the separation of powers issues because otherwise you would have the judiciary getting embroiled in all these internal disputes about whether one resources getting allocates one senator or another a inconsistent with the immunity for you to get involved in sort of those decisions and that's and especially where here senator bradley brady is acting pursuant to his function within the system which is to apply these different the same is true for senators and and second you brought up young blood and just want to clarify that we also said in our brief manzi versus the carlow and that was a eastern district of new york case that is similar to young blood with the exception that in young blood it was an extension of the budgetary appropriations process which is why the court found it to be within the legislat