petitioners who've gone before us today that all people in the united states are protected by the process because we know that terms of vitus and under those protections the general rule is that liberty is the norm and detention a carefully limited exception and we know that that rule is embodied in a line of cases that include salerno infatuation adams and and so under that general rule so will the tension has to be carefully limited to advance an overwhelming government interest and that is why the government must bear a burden to prove a reason why it's putting someone in jail and also has to provide other strong procedural protections and we also know that this general rule applies in the context of immigration because it but it is the supreme court relied on this rule incited this line of cases general at least for a brief period of time where we move a bill you have been conceded even to moore has no play the bill of the because congress has not commanded that our class members shall be detained it is not commanded that they should be detained by default it is not confer unlimited discretion it confers discretion to act within normal constitutional limits and that is essentially the message from the vitus regarding that word and that's exactly what we're arguing here that yes the word may can base a degree of discretion but all discretion can  be used particularly if an executive agency accept side the limits of the constitution additionally what do you say to the point was made in one in the precinct your case then an oral argument previously you just heard that well even the dissenters in some of these cases presume that existing rules of burden on the alien what apply analysis i think it's important to point out this case was decided on summary judgment and so if we're looking at the government interest we should look to what evidence the government submitted to support that it had an interest in the burden being on the non citizen what cost to the government would be incurred if the burden were shifted to the government and what's telling here is the government submitted no evidence whatsoever there was no evidence that putting the burden of proof on the government would be impracticable there was no evidence that any obstacles existed to the government accessing information about our class members there was no evidence that alternatives to detention were ineffective there was no evidence that people detained under twelve dollars to six dollars a are dangerous or likely to  abscond and so the government has never clearly explained much less proven that it has any interest whatsoever in detaining people who cannot show a reason to detain i would also point out that we put in extensive evidence about the nature of the liberty interest at stake in these bond hearings you know the outset we put in undisputed statistical evidence drawn from the government's own public a publicly available records that when our class members had these hearings while bearing the burden of proof almost half of them were denied bond the average bonds were very high we're getting bonds in hartford on average of greater than twenty eight thousand dollars about half of them who got a bond were still in jail ten days later they could not pay the bond it was too high and  we also found that for those who were detained about half the cases lasted greater than four months and one of four cases lasted almost two years so the interests that are at stake are very significant and of course our individual petitioners in this case i think illustrate there that very effectively mr perle rito for example he was someone who had not had any interaction with law enforcement for ten years he had a u s citizen wife who was disabled you had three u s citizen children you know already come forward to immigration psystar the process of correcting his of the evidence for risk of flight and that was modeled on the bill reform act and i just want to point out that of course unlike the bill reform act our class members are not people who have been charged with a federal crime so there is not that interest at the government level of responding to criminal charges but i also want to point out that addington i think has something to say here about what the standard of proof should be we contend the standard of proof for flight risk should be clear and convincing in the supreme court said that in addington that in a civil detention proceeding to ensure that there is adequate confidence in the outcome and also to equitably allocate the risks of error that there should be a clear and convincing burden on the government to show the reason why the person is detained and also of course it's notable that our class members don't get many of the other procedural protections that exist in the criminal law system you know so for example they don't have a right to counsel they don't have a speedy trial right so elevating the standard of proof for their detention for risk of flight i think is appropriate to make up in some respects for these lack of other protections lastly i would just lead to address the government's argument about the class remedy and to be clear the government has not challenge any of the rule twenty three factors in this case the government is not challenge the district court's finding that an exception to the  applied in certification is proper the government has not shall and the declaration that was entered in this case of providing rights for a class members what the government seems to challenge is the appropriateness of an injunction entering in light of injunctions that operate on people who are in removal proceedings in here the injunction applies and provides a benefit to people who are in removal proceedings right there having a bond hearing so they have to be in the will proceedings and consequently all of our class members who do you maintain that under any circumstances u s citizens could be detained without the government having the burden of proving clear and convincing evidence that there was a need to detain  focusing in on u s citizens could the government him detain a u s citizen in jail and put him in a prison for six months without having to prove something that's that's not law of course it is an issue that i ask we often ask questions that try to understand the contours of what your argument is and i just want to see if you in the other side are at least us citizens but to we can't just presume that the bulls are the same in the immigration context because if the government additional interests that are implicated in that historically in other words which then turns the question is to why should the us the standards for detention be one of the rules that don't apply to aliens as opposed to one of the citizen rules that do apply to aliens what is it about these rules question of what does the constitution require right and and and as as the supreme court has as rules so long as the attorney general's discretion on the matter  a bond proceeding none of us has the risk of error in deciding whether somebody can be released without risk to the community without rule in favor of liberty only applies in the face of permanent detention i think that the supreme court has as not suggested in any way that the government can arrest people put them in jail and not have to show a reason so long as the detention is not permanent and i was just setting salerno is a clear indicator there that relates to people who are charged with federal crimes and even there they can only be detained pending trial for an area of time with very strong procedural protections including the government bearing the burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence thank you that concludes arguments for today this session of the honorable united states court of appeals has now recessed until the next session a court god save the united states of america and this honorable court counsel you may disconnect from the meeting