thank you your honor may please the court kirk passage on behalf of the student athletes in thinking about your use this morning in the break in attempt not to repeat what we addressed in the brief this struck me that there is one thing that commonly addresses the various issues before the court whether we talk about injury standing sufficient interest property interests or due process or really want to view it and that is the student athletes connections with united states and  universities now this court recognized in the o'bannon decision six years ago now that is primarily the opportunity to learn higher education that tracks student athletes to the united states campus there in person participation how much time they must be in practices and the additional forty hours or so in education those factors that you recognized in the antitrust case are in the record before this co status by itself that's the point to government makes is not by themselves alone enough but we don't have that here we have student athletes who were created to the united states who accepted offers and scholarships and grants and who committed under considerably regulations to play for these universities in doing that they gave up opportunities to attend any other university in the world understanding that if they attended another university country for speaking of it rough where you had a college professor whose contract was not renewed but those cases recognized as i think this court well knows that the boundaries of the u s are not in determining determining factor that guides on its express face was limited to just that quarter it didn't encourage students to defer their start date so when the guidance was issued you would be looking at a spring quarter and summer quarter and then you'd be looking at a fall  these students to not come over in spring or summer they applied they got their visas they got their i twenty's in may and june before there was any additional guides issue so they had legitimate visas issued by the state department should not then if there was a problem so based on the spot department states actions and the university is actions by the guides we think it's fine but there's one other point which i think is important you know the requirement of the guid since only five percent of them go on to success sports that is of the college level there is nothing in the guides that sense expressly or otherwise that student athletes who are engaged in a four have to dumb it course load and also in gauged in athletics competition for their universities where they must be on campus under university supervision under hight medical standards where we all know where they are men you will see where the u c l a women are and sunday on television there is no question about national security here in the simple fact is the st time ever that d h has eyes construed that guides to say no the student as they does not count was in the know november hearing in the court below that's when they adopted the position that full time course of study did not encompass student athletes required to be on campus that's without comment that's without justification that's without not so i do think the student athletes given the invitations that d h has issued in the guides saying we hope you will be able to come here given the one hundred year history given the issuance by the state department of visas given  recipient as part of that that should have surprised i sent a v h s highest wants to treat is a small category of international students differently it has to have a legitimate justification and it can do it by taking a meeting early october we submitted a request in outland our position in th us eyes was stone cold silent in response they didn't raise the issues in their briefings i had asked judge phillips multiple times for what  d h as isis position was on this issue and only when pressed the a s u s answered the question and said our position is that being a student athlete on campus where you are required to be athletes get in debt uncontroverted in the record so this is about as safe as it could be and frankly your honor we know how important this is these are eighteen year old kids i guess adults now who are so strongly intent on i mean their commitment to their university is that they would sue the united states government to get that right to come to do what they were invited to do which the law permits them to do so i think this voluntary the government has offered no justification for why these student athletes are treated different then we turn in student athletes are treated differently than a student has me at u c berkeley who gets one academic unit of credit for doing the exact same thing whatever the reason is it's not rational it's not logical it's not set forth they don't even mention this in their brief there has been no argument advanced by the government is why this is not million international students that and if it rises relaxation of encore standards and the regulation students were required to take primarily on primarily in person and person classes right now the we do believe judge phillips abused her discretion much as i respect her we believe in this case she got it wrong because but that's a preliminary injunction there is no remedy for the student athletes their seasons will be over before we can get a determination have to file a motion even if we expedite the basketball season is over in about six weeks so this is the only remedy and i would submit that this well it is painting a picture it doesn't ever explain why st year student no criticisms that are what she did we obviously disagree with the conclusion and the reason we believe it constitutes an abuse of discretion i guess or several pieces to it you know summarized rather than explained in detail number one we think the record was clear that the government offered no justification whatsoever for why student athletes required to be on campus does not satisfy a requirement for a full course of study we think she did have to set policy to interpret the regulation any more than this court sense policies interpret regulations that same reward and when you presented them to her what was her response oh her response really was but that's when the decorations came in from the sixteen student athletes showing their connection to the us explaining the timetables explaining their visas and i twenties so we did not have a chance to address judge phillips after that evidence was submitted in the government's response to the evidence so that's one point the nd point where i think there's an abuse of discretion is the records show that you could be a st year student online only as long as when you signed up you were supposed to have a course in person so you have st year students in this country who have no one person courses there is no rational distinction between those students who are permitted to be here in these st year student athletes number three as we showed with u c berkeley they get a little bit of academic credit for doing exactly what u c l a to us there's no basis in the government is proffered money for distinguishing between the two other than to suggest that u c l a or you could discretion is you can read all the government's guidance top to bottom at no point in time was there even attempt to explain why a student has it's required to be on campus don't qualify a discretion you should have moved in given this case any that's an imposition on a district court judge that army fine here i've i've heard your argument your argument is on the merits you should win and you may well why are we wasting time here why not get it back to the court moved the case for summary judgment because your honor at the basketball season has already started these two athletes already missed six weeks of practice they've already missed games against top competition united states when they come back whenever that is they have to quarantine for fourteen days so maybe joe did you raise that issue or that just if you use the court i assume we did your honor but we're all aware of what's happened time since november with the nd wave with the new regulations coming in with the travel restrictions that are being here so really i mean we're not in a position to take new evidence here to show why she was wrong mused you discretion there where you're coming from here on her is we think the evidence in the arguments we've made demonstrate an abuse of discretion and what i think you're saying is you may have shown mr passage that she's wrong she may or may not be wrong but i don't think you've shown here and you know that judges really don't like it when the government chastises us about you don't have the power to do this or that when their power in their mind  its rules and can't just bend their rules because of sympathy or empathy and i have and i know judge smith and judge follows that tremendous sympathy and empathy for your plaintiffs all around the  world who are in a very very difficult situation many many people have suffered wrongs under this open situation and they may be in that category for sure and we have tremendous concern for them but we have to