remedy congress where the courts explains that the answer most often will be congress and for the reasons i've discussed that's again correct here and for that reason the claim against my client should have been dismissed my nd argument is that my clients are entitled to qualify munity as a supreme court explained well it's not sufficient for a complaint to make allegations that are merely consistent with liability it must move across the line between possible and plausible and the complaint your false report mis read us theory is that my client's arrested her for no reason without even arguable cause to believe that she lacked lawful immigration status but her allegations are that this was not a chance encounter hear i don't have a question i'm qualified immunity district or some allison s was that because mr wade i had chosen to omit from her complaint and the allegations that blix supports the theory that my clients had arguable probable cause that she had sufficiently upright edged the absence of even arguable crossable plausible cause and that is simply backwards a district court cannot short circuit the rule  fashion in here we have our claims that my clients arrived at me with ms radios and apparently recognized her on the street and surrounding her asked for her name said that's her and then stand or fall based on her assertion that my client's lacked even are you able clause to believe that she was present in the country illegally and it really underscores the impossibility of her theory of this case against her or her assertion it is essentially that my client's acted at random that they had no reason for a lot of reason to arrest her and that it simply can't be reconciled with her own allegations in the complaint about the way that this arrest on foldit much less with same day immigration charges which also is my understanding remain pending i believe that the next hearing in her immigration case is currently scheduled for may for no further questions i qualified immunity i'll turn back to the special factors analysis of course as the supreme court explained in a bosie the question is whether there are sound reasons to believe that congress mi recognizing a new damages it must context and here there are often as me explained in district courts as i think miss re to has not disputed she is free to raise precisely the claim that she is pursuing required before judicially superimposing damages remedy apply here in our underscored by the fact in this way that it can raise as again she i think has not disputed precisely the claim that she wants to bring here in her r process and that in congress in providing that opportunity did not also arise the punitive authorize the damages remedy particularly in the immigration context which is constitutionally committed so you're going to forgive me i do not sure that i heard part of your question but let me try to respond and please let me know if i have if i have missed part of it there are two points to make about the news that st of all the court and the news are underscoring no fewer than four times  branches carotids the practical consequences of recognizing a remedy in this context which only underscore i should add by the thread there are nature of the plaintiff's allegations here and then furthermore to the extent that to continue to argue that there is some retaliatory policy dimension to her claim all of these underscore the biggest cause of action is not available here because these are circumstances where congress is both best positioned to weigh the costs and benefits of recognizing a new damages remedy and has already implicitly spoken to the party of doing so through the eye and that i see that my time has expired  complaint about the timing of the immigration charges i do think that the complaint was inaccurate in suggesting that it was not until that no charges filed she was detained but i think that the record record there is a stamp that says that the notice to appear was received by the immigration court so we have in our complaint that we have other allegations that indicate that go to exclude that alternative explanation what so i think the st one is that when they arrested her they simply surrounded asked her name and took her away without ever explaining who they were or why they were arresting her and that's in spite of the fact that there are agency regulations that require agents to state the reason why a person is being arrested and so the reasonable inference to draw they would do that if they did live on then i understand that you're saying that that they only arrested her because of her activity and that may be but her activity among all the illegal people but not that she was undocumented people but not that she that she they didn't think she was undocumented i don't know where you get that from so i think the argument is that the mere fact that somebody is speaking out on immigrant rights does not give clear there is no th amendment claim a group of proceedings the only way that it can come up is on a motion to suppress but suppression is not an adequate remedy here and that's for three principal reasons st of all the supreme court in lopez mendoza of evidence is not a remedy for a completed wrong and that most it is supposed to deter future misconduct and indeed even though the exclusionary rule was available and of itself the court did not hold that that was a basis to decline to involving egregious orthe and violations and of course that's an hour or more stringent standard finally it's often not clear that there is anything to suppress or the suppression would make any difference the evidence of identity is not suppressed   neither of those was a new context and there's nothing about the i in a that's different or meaningfully different here either  obviously immigration politics here or you're detaining one says so so their post home country may be concerned about whereas in a criminal context that isn't necessarily a book that may give us pause on whether to extend that in to the solo aggression so i think you're i think that you know i want to address that concern but i think it would be it's probably better addressed at the special factors stage rather than a in terms of whether it's a new context i don't think that the fact that the immigration laws that are targeted at non citizens has any relevance to whether it's a new context you know i don't think there is an argument that example non citizens do not i think in this regard the loser case is very helpful because there the court specifically rejected the notion that anything to do with immigration automatically implicates national security or foreign policy i think the mind going to pieces that involve who it involved an officer who shot someone across the border there were immediately diplomatic implications and that was a very difficult issue that is not not going to be present  that the embassy analysis has to be quite specific to the facts and the court rejected again this notion that simply because a case has something to do the immigration that there is no possibility of a bit in germany i think the court was very clear in saying that you know that this might invite many claims by immigrants i think that sort of flood gates concern is not really going to be an issue i don't think that you will be seeing an overwhelming number of these claims largely because of the pleading support the th amendment claim but also to exclude the alternative explanation that there was probable cause i think i think that we have met those standards but if we haven't i think in the vast majority of cases  claims finally i think i also wanted to you know pick up on that question about whether congress has indicated that it doesn't wish to provide a remedy for violations like this you know congress is attention to any variation of the whole thing does not mean that congress has solely on the absence of a warrant reasonable suspicion probable cause for arrest and it's not an accident that she's played her case in that way to the extent that she believes that retaliation might be relevant here it would only underscore why her claim that's a shock to carter from cause and i think it's clear not for any effect on the substance of her claim so the regulations two are no longer a part of this case as it's been presented to this court on appeal finally on qualified immunity i'd like to underscore has rejected precisely that argument in cases where a court of appeals for example has said that it would have been the scope of discovery to minimize the intrusion on an agent's immunity the supreme court has said that qualified immunity he's an immunity from soups and as a result should be decided at the earliest possible stage in the case not see it for summary judgment just my opposing counsel suggested and so the scope of discovery really is neither here nor there the question is again whether these are circumstances where i view plaintiff has defeated be more likely alternative explanation which here in his lawful conduct and whether as to the biggest cause of action these are circumstances where  can suppress evidence but it's only about suppressing evidence on and it's not in th twenty two points on that my opposing counsel's argument about alternative remedies respectfully is as far as i can tell entirely circular her argument seems to be that because she has not chosen to file a motion to suppress