have appealed the district court's denial of their motion for a preliminary injunction which sought to require dependence to comply with the law governing their operations regulated motor carriers are prohibited by credible law f offering transportation services equipment they do not own and last there was a written lease containing the requirements sec warthen forty nine c f r three seventy six twelve of the truth and leasing regulation conditions on that authority in connection with the i c c terminations act congress deliberately decided to continue the requirements of the truth and we've seen regulations however to move to a system of primarily private  limited and that injunction should issue if there is reasonable cause to believe that a violation has occurred in particular there is no requirement of an evident statute that all you need to establish is reasonable ours in order to require federal district court to issue an injunction so that the actual terminology of reasonable cause was used  with regard to shall issue injunctive relief i believe that the statute in that case shawn it indicated that the court had jurisdiction to enter an injunction to prevent violations but there was no shall type language in that and in that at to a certain extent the reasonable cause standard goes to the determination of the violation aspect has a violation occurred but it seems to me and reading t v abers this hill that chief justice burger were very prohibited and in light of that ban in light of the fact that congress has specifically indicated that this activity by agencies must be prohibited and we cannot countenance anything that will destroy the habitat that is what gave rise to the decision that faced with that sort of the ban the district court could not take any action that would be inconsistent with that then because that's what is the two hundred fifty cents when we're talking about the protection of species which is listed by the fish and wildlife service as threatened or endangered and for which there is absolutely no other alternative either we issue the injunction and prevent the dam from being built which otherwise destroys the habitat for the snail darter and this case which is essential as i understand your reasonable cause argument a strict liability situation where if the lease doesn't contain every argument has to be that there is no other method that could compensate the independent operators for the violation i can understand it in the t v a context because we can't compensate the loss of the snail darter with money the only of a requirement imposed on the motor carriers in terms of the potential harms that may occur there's any number of incl later difficult to quantify harms that could the attendant change not having these required provisions in the leas adopted these regulations in the first instance which was the result of a tremendous battle back and forth a battle perhaps the wrong word but an exchange where the where the i c c look to all facets of the transportation industry to determine what  the necessary to having a lease it consistent with a sound national transportation system at a very broad policy level that decision was made and the determination was made as to what the particular quiets ought to be that should be in that harm is going to be the extinction or further endanger ment of the endangered species so i can see there as a practical matter that is not a silly thing for the court to say you know i think with this i think the statute grafters intended for us to assume that there was irreparable harm in all cases brought under the statute why is that assumption yes as a practical matter a proper assumption here why and basically all history is brought under the statute or not even basically a why in all cases under this statute as a practical matter do we presume or should we presume irreparable harm the first what is the nature of the harm  rulemaking proceedings whereby they they specifically consider the various types that they occur owner operators in this industry have very little bargaining power that was the whole impetus behind the adoption of its control over the carriers operating authority is tremendously efficacious and effective to guarantee a level playing field throughout the country with regard to these leases  with the requirements to have a lease meeting the requirements of three seventy six while it was prohibited from the operating without such a lease now it's i would also caution and like to point out that this is not a case first off there has to be and it's illegal well i think that's not much of an evaluation because the requirements are so clear it is crystal clear if don't clear or because you bought your argument that reasonable cause is all you need to show problem with money that is otherwise but what will happen is if we leave this to an individual damage remedy then there will be no requirement that they and then on which states that you cannot operate  in interstate commerce without a lease with these requirements no longer means that what it means is that motor carries can operate in interstate commerce with non conforming leases provided they're willing to pay damages that it just could be set pretty high couldn't they i mean there's law conditions you look at the exact language of the prohibition you cannot move right absent this requirement that is what the law specifies and it's that kind of prohibition that gives rise and we have another one here another argument which is to say i might be more inclined to hold you in damages are meaningless to me what's the measure damage going to be if you're going to damages there will be various damages for example in terms of the illegal charge backs charge backs that were made and not disclosed to drivers but again there are other this is why there is injunctive relief or not having terms in the lease is  that to take the example of a failure to have an accounting a driver may never know about that it's hard to quantify what that damage may be a driver for example may not know that he has a right to certain documents which may help in the case of an accident and insurance wants to know whether or not that he is entitled to certain insurance coverage and these kinds of damages may never be able to are penitent damages available under the statu the requirements however as i stress again the are the types of harms that kind of that and occur as a result of not having this leas range because by not having that lease there maybe the driver may be unaware of remedies off the bike by limiting it to a damage remedy than a carrier can pick and choose it can decide to operate in interstate commerce without particular claims of particular deficiencies that they alleged which we claim would only result in nominal damages if their arguments were correct their other claims were if they succeeded on those claims they would be more substantial damages give me an example of a claim that might produce fuel that is available for purchase to owner operator switch terminals around the country is priced on a daily basis in each terminal based on the rack prices which they purchase that and some administrative fee offset by  a survey of surrounding gas stations so if the the rack price is a dollar nineteen and they impose some administrative fee to recover their costs in administering the program donor operators say two cents to take it whether a valuation whether there was harm to the owner operators or whether there really wasn't any harm in exercising their discretion of whether it's optional is appropriate that they did in fact have that power the framework in which all this is question should be analyzed and i can follow on and judge can this question is the current standard for violation of a substantial compliance standard that is another dispute that the district court didn't compliance that means that trivial violations are simply overlooked and they are not in the end actionable violations which means then that only serious violations under your even your view of the case are at issue if it's a serious violation that is to say discretion if monetary damages that you've been on i'm making a different point i'm trying to figure out and as we all are whether or not there should be a presumption of irreparable harm we should read the statute for the reasonable cause and so on there's your if you're telling me that the standard of liability under the statute is you can only be liable for a violation i think even some substantial breach then begins to suggest to me well if that's the case maybe there should be presumed harm let me let me try and separate that your honor because i think there's two points in there the presumption of irreparable harm the case is that the plaintiffs rely on to make that argument are government enforcement actions and the cases make that distinction that is yes that right i thought that the i c c is important authorities simply transferred to the department of transportation in a sense it is because the carriers still have to have a certificate of authority to transport freight and so the risk continuing  but they are the reason i think this might be relevant tolling i don't know what roland is or sense is that it's a variation on the argument about substantial compliance i mean if all we have i a suit that allows a lot of the times liability for lack of substantial compliance and of all we have as a successor to the injunctive part of the government used to have as the private parties i'm getting closer and closer to think that maybe the proper reading of the these issues and that is the supreme court's decision and weinberger versus ruth romero marcello which sets forth to circumstances in which the reasonable cause exception could apply the first is if the statute explicitly says so and the only example only remedy available under the endangered species act was an injunction and there was no way to compensate the general public for the elimination of an entire species of the fish from the face of the earth the same argument applies to the railroad revitalization and regulatory reform cases where that at least one of the cases that the injunction statute was passed because there was no adequate remedy for these railroad companies to get their tax revenues back once they've been paid to the so the injunction was mandatory because there wasn't any way to get the money back once it was paid the other issue that they looked at there in most cases than the railroad act is that the language of that statute does differ from the statute because the tax injunction act would otherwise prohibit a court from enjoying the assessment of a tax and so congress specifically gave the court's jurisdiction to enjoin a tax which would otherwise didn't hand and the courts of va basically what you're saying i'm sorry your answer is that you have implied is that what you're saying that is actually an at least to be dragged something that's where we want to get to the evidence restates we can present the evidence of our compliance damages probably aren't going to be available under some of the sections and then you get kind of written into his letter by the absence of any injunctive relief and monetary relief would be appropriate but again that goes back to the court's discretion in determining whether monetary relief is is indeed an adequate remedy and i don't think that this record supports the fact  the monetary relief is not an adequate remedy because certainly and some of the allegations that they've made there's any question that that monetary relief is an adequate remain the district court made that finding my understanding of plastering the case was the only issue before us  in every case write so depending on what the nature of the violation was whether it was a conduct violation or a lease violation there are two different types of least violations and with worst are the two the leasing regulations violations and with respect to the violation of the lease writing regulations if you background in the history indicates it is the failure to disclose which results in irreparable harm these drivers do not have this information they are not educated they are not sophisticated if this is not in the least they never even lauren of the rights that have passed them by the rights that they should have had that would give rise even to a lawsuit lawsuit after lawsuit will well past carrier after carrier can continue to operate without conforming leases because it is a disclosure regime if you put it in the lease does not indicate for example the correct insurance policy or the nature of an insurance policy that a driver may have that driver gets situation where he is not aware of what his rights are if he doesn't know that he has a right to require certain documentation he never requires the documentation he never even speaks it because he's not been told about it so damage after untold damage can accrue because it is a disclosure regime and when that disclosure does not occur there is untold and irreparable harm that are attended to that which is precisely why this was required that's the last last case on our calendar for this morning we will resume tomorrow morning when we now stand in recess