incorrectly framed the question whether proposition two hundred is an unconstitutional regulation of immigration the court framed the question in terms of proposition two hundred purported adoption of federal standards and the delegation of federal power but as the supreme court has made in phatic lee clear the power to regulate immigration is unquestionably exclusively a federal power any state statute that regulates immigration is prescribed and congress has no power to authorize or approve state regulation of immigration therefore the court relied on the iran and iranians legal premise that congress could authorize regulation of immigration and the court's error could not be more explicit on this point your honour's at page eleven of the court's order the court admitted quote if the court were to follow the decision  lulac versus wilson lulac one nine zero eight f stop seven fifty five which found several provisions of california's proposition one eighty seven to be preempted by federal immigration law proposition two hundred patients and reporting provisions would directly regulate immigration by creating a comprehensive scheme to detect and report the presence and effect the removal of illegal aliens but the court held that last one was decided before the enactment of the p r a thereby distinguishing it from the present case that your honour's is patently wrong the constitution prescribe state regulation of immigration and congress has no power to authorize or approve it therefore the p r a the personal responsibility act can have no bearing on the first test of preemption proposition two hundred either regulates immigration or it doesn't and the district court found that it did that should have been the end of the court's analysis second in applying the field preemption test the district court misread congress is careful designation of the limited instances in which states have power just that alien eligibility for benefits the court miss took the as evidence of congress's intent to allow states to legislate throughout the entire field and including specifically the of verification and reporting this legal error not only turns the field preemption doctrine on his head it turns exceptions from the general rule into the general rule it violates the most basic tenets of  construction and if this raise any notion of implied preemptive tent intent third the district court improperly truncated the conflict preemption test the court applied only one prong of the test the physical impossibility test and it ignored altogether the obstacle prong of the test it failed to even assess whether proposition two hundred presented an obstacle to the means and ends of federal law rife with these and other errors your honor the district courts in iowa the preliminary injunction was an abuse of discretion as the district court itself recognized the only case on point says proposition two hundred is unconstitutional the the state to the court there's a mistake that the state and the interveners are making with respect to right now this is a facial challenge or honors this is a challenge to the constitutionality of proposition two hundred whether the state has any authority under this primacy clause to engage in this type of regulation if it is we entered by the supremacy clause supremo c class the state has no authority to enact this legislation one way or the other to interpret it for resolution and the hardship to the parties from waiting waiting here for further factual development wouldn't significantly significantly or in any way help the court decide the legal issues all it would in jail is requiring undocumented immigrants to actually apply for benefits subject themselves to the threat of verification and reporting to the federal government and the legal issues with remain exactly as they are and there is that case that i would cite to the court's attention it's fireman's fund inevitably have an unconstitutional effect the supremes court has permitted review even when the impermissible consequences have not yet occurred here are the unconstitutional effects flows inevitably from the states in permissions impermissible scheme to regulate immigration and there plainly would be a hardship on the plaintiffs from delaying the case the plaintiffs have shown that this scheme to regulate immigration is deterring immigrants from seeking benefits even those benefits for which federal law guarantees their edge of eligibility and there's no way to compensate them for the harm of foregoing benefits for which they or their children might be eligible emergency medical not at all your honor the statute is unconstitutional ab initio the state has no authority to enact it therefore it doesn't matter in a particular instance how it's applied or not the threat from the impossible state incursion into federal authority over immigration is happening already and it has happened already and the harm is inevitable it is inextricably a result of this scheme to regulate immigration and in fact is having precisely the effect that it was intended to to deter immigrants from coming to or remaining in arizona for fear of being detected and report run around standing the plaintiffs have the requisite personal stake in the outcome of this case and there are four separate groups of plants and i just want to make clear that we  focus on them individually the organization plaintiffs friendly house and value that's all because proposition two hundred impermissibly regulates immigration immigrants in arizona are wary of contact with anyone perceived to be a state or local official as a result immigrants are coming to friendly house and value that stall with questions about proposition two hundred and its scope and its effect and more important they are seeking benefits from these your honor on standings the court is supposed to accept as true all the material allegations in the complaint and construe the complaints in the light most favorable to plants and the allegation in the complaint about the organizations is that proposition two make is to convert the spatial challenge into an as applied challenge we don't need anyone to apply for a benefit to know how the statute is going to work it is a fewer legal question like a lot of those that are totally o court to complain about the constitutionality of the statute so questioning how is best for each of the groups you represent how is that standing which requires an injury how is that how standing be endured the injury to the organization says i was explaining is the drain on and the diversion of their resources i would cite the supreme court case in hayden's realty corporation versus coleman four fifty five us three immigration it's subject them to mandatory verification and reporting for their unlawful status and as of today there is no guarantee that proposition two hundred as written won't apply even to those federal public benefits for which they or their children are eligible their children the third group they are citizen miners proposition two hundred subjects then and their parents to this impermissible scheme as a result their parents are forced to forgo benefits for which the children are eligible or risk being reported and of boarded and the benefits that we're talking about your honour's that we have children with chronic breathing conditions their parents are afraid to take them to emergency for emergency room care because of proposition two hundred and the question your honour's is not whether they would have received the benefits but that whether they are willing and able to apply for the benefits and whether proposition two injury in fact legally protected interest certainly interest what is the legally protected interest that's being insured in their interest would be in applying for the state and local public benefits or federal public benefits nothing stopping them from applying that's the problem with ouse this impermissible regulation of immigration that arizona has engaged in like a star you rely on to support your argument that the impermissible nature of the skiing is a legally protected interest that we have to reckon i would cite your honor to northeastern florida chapters of the associated general contractors say it was a minority set aside program and it was the clay i'm of reverse discrimination and the court said you didn't have to show that you would have gotten the benefit but that you were deprived of the interest in applying under a program that was constitutional and in effect that's exactly what our plaintiffs have been deprived of is the interest in applying for state local public benefits without having the state unconstitutionally regulate immigration in that case had ensue to challenge the program which is the issue that's joined here if no one has applied for benefit but i'm not sure that case helps you very much well i would say your honor that rightness in standing harm is inevitable it is inherent in this scheme to regulate immigration there is nothing to be gained in terms of this court's understanding of the legal issues in having somebody apply for a benefit get denied the benefit have their undocumented status detected and reported to the federal government all it would do is enforce the scheme to regulate immigration and this court is in a perfect position now to kate those issues without somebody having applied your honour's if i may i'd like to reserve my to this court to affirm the trial court's decision denying the preliminary injunction so that arizona can continue its efforts to implement this new state law and i'd like to begin by talking about the standing right next issues that were highlighted in this court order of this lawsuit was filed before this law ever took effect in the state of arizona was filed november thirtieth as of that point the governor had not even proclaimed this initiative into law so we had not even had the chance to implement this new law a tiara was issued the day the lawsuit was filed and then december twenty second the court lifted the t r o deny the preliminary injunction in arizona then began its effort to implement this new law in a manner consistent with its language and consistent with all constitutional requirements none of the plaintiffs none of the plaintiffs have been denied any benefits because of proposition two hundred they couldn't have given the procedural status because we weren't in forcing this when this lawsuit was filed the citizens here have not alleged that they have not received benefits that they're entitled to the and documented immigrants who are plaintiffs aren't eligible for the benefits that proposition two not need to be an application because this law is being challenged on its face your honor that's not correct there needs to be standing there needs to be an article three controversy otherwise this court is in the position of destroying advisory opinions whenever a new law passed that people don't like that people have concerns about that people have questions about that's not enough to come in and invoke the jurisdiction of the federal court and get them to block the state's effort to even get out of the gates and start implementing new state law they need to have standing here they don't they have no actual injury the reliance on the fear the fear of undocumented immigrants that are going to be reported and there may be consequences for that that's not caused by anything the defendants have done that's not caused by proposition two hundred that's inherent in the status of being in this country in violation of the federal immigration laws there are some fear with that and there af support that chani gregoire that the state employee who's a plaintiff has already comment for undocumented immigrants to be afraid to apply for assistance that's inherent in that status it's not cost it's not an injury that's before the state had begun implementing the law and so we don't know what the harm there is no actual injury to friendly house if the immigrants are coming to them with questions again that to some extent is when there's a new law law change at the state level that they have federal level people may have questions so they're going to go where they're comfortable going to get those questions answered that doesn't get into federal court and in a case or controversy that's appropriate for judicial intervention i think it outreach programs it's certainly not an argument so people understand what proposition two hundred does what it does not do but it's not an argument for article three straight standing to get the courts involved in educating controversies that really haven't ripened and we defile a supplemental citation of authorities the end of last week to the case of thomas b anchorage equal rights commission and a two thousand and bank decision from this court which gives a helpful analysis of the again that's not happened here as well and third they look at the court will look at the enforcement history of the particular statute and here we haven't had a chance to develop an enforcement history because this was filed before the law even took effect in arizona and that's just the constitutional test for right now if you get past that which plaintiff don't in this case you get to the prudential concerns is this really appropriate for just a judicial resolution of what's a hardship to  parties and i think the hardships here are similar to the preliminary injunction balancing and on the plaintiff's side a lot of speculation a lot of fear a fear not necessarily caused by proposition two hundred but on the state side we have a state law approved by our state constitutional processes so we have probably the most fundamental interest a state could have in being able to implement its state laws and the principles of rightness the principles of judicial review principles at work there in arizona as we in arizona for official language versus arizona another initiative case writing out of arizona the united states supreme court cautioned against federal courts getting involved too early in the constitutional adjudication of state statutes all those prudential principles caution against judicial involvement at this point in arizona's effort to implement similar to yours that typically you have a frustrated bitter situation and that's when they arise i'm not the cases that i've seen where you do get the pre enforcement challenges are in the area where there's a potential chilling effect on free speech but we don't have that here we don't have that here anyway we simply have a state law that requires that people verify eligibility for benefits we have preexisting federal law that establishes that undocumented immigrants are generally not eligible for these benefits and our implementation is absolutely consistent with the requirements of u s c sixteen twenty one and the related laws that stablished those restrictions on eligibility for benefits the concern about emergency services those are two those are not state and local public benefits mandated by federal terminations it is simply those benefits where that or a law or another state law has established restrictions based on immigration status that they'll do that verification if the court gets pa attempting to determine set the standards for who's in this country legally and who's not the federal government steps those standards we are simply verifying eligibility based on the existing federal standards federal requirements the reporting requirements are also as the district court properly concluded harmonious with federal law federal law encourages the exchange of information from state employees from state governments to federal authorities regarding immigration status we are simply mandating that those reports be filed so it's not up to the individual discretion of particular state employees if there's a via detected discovery violation of immigration law get the report to the federal authorities and they're responsible for any unforced meant that may occur similarly with the due process challenges again standing in rightness you probably don't even need to get to these issues but on a facial challenge they have the burden of showing the circumstances under which this can be applied in a constitutional manner and they don't meet that test we have hearings for any applicant for benefits who's denied for whatever reason they can appeal those determinations and those issues will be points out in its opening brief on page fifty five why this court must dismiss this appeal it says quote the only thing certain about proposition two hundred then is that no one knows no one knows how broadly or how merrily it will be applied in other words the plaintiffs are going to have to weigh the knowledge that they don't have now knowledge just that they had met they don't have and knowledge of an injury if any that will result from an injur occasion of that law because right now right now they fail to meet the requirements of the new one because they have not met the three prongs of the on number one they must have a genuine threat there is no threat it may not be imaginary or speculative and in fact yes this court has indicated in this questions it is speculative as to how this statute will be applied i know a little bit your honor about the iran case you know  ninety ninety five and in two thousand i argued and i won that case that relates to the opportunity to bid for contractors and i contrast and it's the question of what gives that contractor standing is the opportunity to bid on an equal footing now that's not presenting that kind of client here the only question it is raising on behalf of the four pseudonyms is the question about whether or not this is indeed regulation of immigration and it only relates to them and what do they say they might mean might be denied benefits they might be reported in fact they might even be ported but those are only conjectural and speculative moreover the second prong that's not met the denial of benefits clients problems absolutely not because unilaterally in any state agency might say well i'm authorized by sixteen twenty five to start asking for evidence of eligibility i'm going to start asking for th moreover as one examines well that's opening pretty page twenty seven to thirty one the very complex analysis of the hypothetical violations of the i n a that i propose this demonstrates why this is an improper challenge and no one has standing to the question should be how are bureaucrats actually applying this law not how might they apply the some future time and this one examines the page fifty one fifty five of the opening brief they demonstrate in all their discussion of what the benefit definition might be and once again this is totally contractural as they conclude on page fifty five now the question isn't right moreover they don't have standing but even if they did federal law allows states and arizona to ask these questions federal law allows states to say them straight juror eligible moreover federal law says you may not bar your employees from seeking information from the ins and opinion information from the ins in other words maldef is seeking today from this court just as sot last december from the district court order if saying that i didn't order that the arizona by the state to deal with three problems that that it is ascertained first of all that section two a proposition two hundred illegal immigration is causing economic hardship number two illegal immigration is encouraged by public agencies t provide public benefits without verifying eligibility and three illegal immigrants have been given a safe haven in this thing that's all proposition six to address the assignment the award public benefits and the inducement it provides  the language of proposition two hundred the language of proposition two hundred would be the question asked by proposition two hundred is more properly eligible and ineligible but moreover the question about legal and illegal is the question that congress has made the determination  immigration it certainly is not in the regulation of immigration because what the supreme court said is the regulation immigration and the terminations as to who may come in and the circumstances under which they may stay arizona makes no such determination under proposition two hundred moreover and this is the position taken by the supreme court enunciated once again as recently as april twenty seventh of this if you're in the base for a dow chemical or dow pharmaceutical case congress must demonstrate by clear and manifest evidence it employees from finding out immigration status it is clear it's not a complete ouster by congress congress could have asked at the state it did not and the third passed in this two part cast is it impossible to comply with both the district court found it was not illegal immigration that is caused by the illegal impermissible payment of welfare benefits to people to legally in this country that's totally consistent with proposition two hundred it's doing it's totally consistent with what congress has decided it wants to have done in this country remember there was tremendous controversy over the adoption of the public response to personal responsibility and work opportunity reconciliation that mike hundred ninety six it was  and to tell state agencies like cannot seem to receive from the i r s information regarding the immigration status of legal or illegal aliens in the united states thank you very much asserting a preemption claim that the statute is unconstitutional because the state had no power to enact it and the constitutional violation is inherent in any application of  the fact that all in this field as i said your honor earlier the district court said that if it was going to follow a little at one he would hold the proposition two hundred is unconstitutional because it creates a scheme to detect report the presence of and affect the removal of illegal aliens and the district court was absolutely right about that and it's grounds for distinguishing lulac one as i said earlier are wrong it looked to federal law to say that or what is the constitutional problem here is that it is not just information that is being passed on the reporting requirements in proposition two hundred is that state and local employees on pain of criminal sanction  violations of federal law that they discover they have no authority under federal law to investigate or to adjudicate or to determine violations of federal law they are completely overstepping congress  commission along with the initiative requires reporting any violation of federal immigration law and to has state and local employees determine violations of federal immigration law necessarily implicates them in the regulation of immigration the only purpose in effect reporting people to the federal government who have violated supposedly federal law is to have them deported to set the deportation  of eligibility proposition two hundred verify verifies the immigration status of each and every applicant whether the status would make the person eligible or not it is overbroad it goes far beyond any purpose of determining benefits eligibility to root out people who are undocumented so as to then be able to report them for being in violation of federal law that is regulation of immigration your honor that goes far beyond and has no relation to benefits eligibility and i can cite to you and this is a very important distinction between verifying immigration status and verifying benefits eligibility the department of justice issued guidance to agencies in ministering public benefits the guidance that is agencies have to ask the applicant to provide documentation of his or her status as qualified basically show us that you are a citizen you are a qualified alien or a nonimmigrant or somebody paroled for less than one year it doesn't say that the agency has to determine the immigration status of every applicants whether or not they even attempt to proffer an immigration status that would make them eligible to the contrary it there is no reason to check with the ins if the applicant claims a status that would not make them eligible from a benefits eligibility perspective you ask somebody to prove that they are eligible if they can't that's the end of the process two hundred doesn't stop there it goes at their immigration status and it goes at this issue of whether they are in violation of federal immigration law precisely to be able to report them the only conceivable purpose for this interlocking scheme of being too broad on the front side and reporting people on the backend is to be able to detect report the presence of and effect there were move a lot of undocumented immigrants in this country and that is