like to reserve about seven minutes on this particular case if i may well see your manager here time minority rights since may make it a little difficult but go ahead that's what i said i quite understand that prompts my first question to you and that is apart from your sovereign immunity argument will get into the us have you argued whether the the act the i've been looking for that where did you argue that seems to me your arguments then primarily a sovereign immunity argument but my question is whether the statute or you can get disarm immunity if you argue that the statute doesn't allow well argument as to part one  even address damages and therefore it cannot be said under the so many cases which we cite that oklahoma has waived so they're tied together in other words part of the reason they cannot be said to have weight sovereign immunity is that the act doesn't articulate that if you want to help blind people you have to waive your sovereign immunity so if those two arguments are tied and oklahoma had been willingly and knowingly accepted fact the net would obviously destroy our arguments about waivers so that the two concepts are the same thing as an agency adjudication like the ferret like the federal maritime proceeding yeah we don't they don't have a there's no way to help j we have these this is the selection of  for the arbitration panel that brings in people from various situations why why should that proceeding qualify for sovereign immunity hundred under federal around when the constitution was written and the courts could not imagine that if states were protected in federal court from having to pay federal damages why they wouldn't be protected in ministre to proceeding under that reasoning they can't have imagined why this arbitration panel which we do say is a final on the beautiful decision of the a p a and therefore analogous to the decision by well you know your priests the briefs don't really go get into the federal maritime analysis much at all but in federal maritime spring court  it was a close decision and one of the one of the considerations is that in the administrative proceeding there was an administrative law judge we don't have that here well in this proceeding you had three and you didn't give us that analysis in your bri f in this proceeding you have three attorneys picked by the parties and the and as you can tell from the record you had all of the rules of procedure it was in that it says what a blind manager can complain about he can complain about the administration anything about the administration of the act which he doesn't like which the state licensing agency has done and in that also doesn't allow you said we don't agree with that so they can say the procedure was is known void and you've got to do it again exactly your honor but they can't say you have to which say it is understandable that the ultimate grant of a contract must be left to the discretion of the government agency the courts will love may contract or the parties and the reason that came to me is i've been recently in some cases before as to what you did wrong the first time it is not we're going to select a person to run this contract courts don't courts normally don't do for the arbitration panel to make that determination yes you're say he's he's got to be out and so i take that under that scenario your argument would be the panel had to stop there it couldn't put mr  you argued that but you need to support it yes your honor and then i'm going to submit that case to support that very point and i think in answer to a question that was relief that doesn't mean that you have weightings the immunity that is an incredibly stringent strict test to do that in the religious act and so men didn't need that and as you point out today the randall shep minutes of our time and then if you have any questions of the united states government missiles here to answer those questions that's permissible  this case and i think it comes to clearer when you listen to the state of oklahoma the state of oklahoma administers this act for the protection of licensed minded interests and at the bottom of most little courthouses there's a cantina where a licensed blind vendor is stationed down there in what the state of oklahoma is doing here is forty s they've taken millions and millions of dollars and yet when they get caught with their hand in a tricky jar and they don't do what they are supposed  has been about what relief the act her meds and why don't you pick it up there what relief does the randolph sheppard act permits an arbitration panel to is as the state of oklahoma would have this court the leap then there is no remedy that can ever be given to a license blind vendor and in this particular case  the act meaningless whatever it was it would mean that the state of oklahoma can do exactly what it wants to do which is exactly what it did in this case hasn't would you run into any is a case where there was a private right of action within article three judge this is a different case in the area of this is a statutory scheme set up or an arbitration panel was set up specifically to govern the state agency the department of education in the license blind winter and the implied right of action is there it's different than such than taste and i think it's completely three two things one is if we if we go down the path the state of oklahoma wants to go down it absolutely takes the heart and soul out of this act well nevermore but  ultimately are able to enforce our judgement now d'argenton it should be unportable simply by the fact that the department of education through three arbitrator pay or awarded it state of oklahoma you know i realize and i don't want to insult this pill that you know in the federal register where these cases are being decided all the time and i can supplements i think that we started them in marbury that the there are published cases in the federal register for damages in attorneys fees are being awarded regularly that the state agencies be held to this standard and if they want to move or buy a lawsuit that the randolph sheppard act and you arbitration provisions are unconstitutional because waters occurred they are free to do so but that wasn't raised here it was not raised in the arbitration proceeding that the proceeding was unconstitutional and they need from the very beginning that's sort of what i'm hearing from you but aren't sure that i'm hearing it correctly that is not the sole argument that i have your honor i'm saying that yes they really believe that why didn't they ra they simply didn't raise it at the first initial stage they didn't raise it in the two first hearings you know there were two indeed there were two that binding goatee and then those were appealed to the united states department of education and we got three arbitrators been to the district court we're now the tenth circuit if if the state of oklahoma is allowed to do whatever it wants and choose whomever was without any repercussions whatsoever if that's what the lawyers then fall on i don't think that's what the lawyers and i think three other circuits who have addressed this very issue have found that that's not the law and the department of education is routinely publishing these cases under the federal register where that is not the law and i submit to this court that that should not be the law that's inserted and the state of oklahoma ought to be held to its responsibilities it's to bring it back that it's getting eighty million dollars a year from the federal government to administer this very program for that then is that a blind vendors i find it meaningful and maybe not waiver explicitly that they get all this money and yet they don't want to buy by the very act which the money is given to well why can't we interpret the powers of the arbitration power panel to be limited to declaratory in injunctive relief and not include damages and still give a way to enforce the act that would both recognize sovereign immunity and also have a right a meaningful remedy under the are for the sat down there for three years and made four million dollars at fort sill and it just doesn't seem just to me that if we just say all going to do is to be more of an objection to the concept of sovereign immunity then to anything now and i think you can legitimately have some concerns about the concept governmentally but it is it you may not then be able to answer this question but i'm going to ask it sure just in case she does what is the department's position on whether randolph sheppard act authorizes an arbitration panel to award damages and that is one question we have we have not addressed and i have addressed this with the department of education and they do not have a response if they don't have a response or they don't have a position they don't have a position i'm sorry even though as you're calling indicated there seem to be awards announced in the federal register on a regular honor and it again these are these cases are you by the parties an interest in the department of education is sitting at the arbitrators and file the administrative records and then backs he's right ok you're on a real briefly some factual things that eighty million dollars is a number that comes out of some place there's nothing to do with reality and that was the factual problem at the he g this case started because the straw stat said that the the recommendation panel had not correctly looked at the criteria while the criteria wasn't present had been created an administrative law judge held that that criteria should have been examined oklahoma went back but the criteria in there there was nothing for the recommendation panel to do so so are not a set of numbers added those numbers and mr brown was still the person they recommended after that mr auspex complained again and said well mr brown hadn't paid his taxes and he was friends with one of the people on that recommendation committee what we point out in the briefs is that it is the army who said if you're delinquent on your taxes as defined in the bars then you can't run this contract we're not going to let you run this contract oklahoma informed all of its managers of that it didn't make a determination it said look if you blink one on your taxes you can't run this contract the army allowed mr brown to run the contract so evidently they decided under whatever meaning standard yes but they've never put they've never taken a formal position about tax plan once if we assume that they were derelict in their duty you are correct i was assuming that they weren't and that the fact that they  analysis of federal maritime the wisconsin department of workforce a vision versus u s department of education case which we cite with through that analysis and specifically found just what i argued and that is early decisions like know i understand counsel it's just that it seems as if a supreme court case as opposed to a district court in wisconsin would have been the better guide for our hearing yes thank you carol th