established law on number one i don't see any indication that you argue that your opening brief and that is your burden to do so please explain to me that and more to the point even if we i overlook the fact that at least i didn't go in unity argument on that point the substance of that issue is troubling to me because how can we claim that at the time of this of them under these it was clearly established for the chaplain that if he that he did not have to purposely discriminate against against mister olsen in order to incur liability when we are so in the famous footnote three put into tension the question of c answer so if given those two sources drawing the most two sources even if there was an argument in correct me if there was an argument in europe but even if there was an argument i'm struggling  how the chaplain would have known the contours of the sea answer that govern his action at that i think your honor it is fortunate that we don't burden our government officials entitled to win so the question about whether you're challenging clearly established law the question if you had a burden to show that that would satisfy and and there's nothing in there that says that in light of what appears to be a generated confusion even if you're right on what the underlying law is a generated confusion that you have to show that the laws crew it would have been clearly established for the chaplain that what he was doing by way did the law and all i'm asking is focusing now on footnote three suggesting there was attention suggesting that the magistrate judge had a whole you know of two proceeding on this want it would have been clear to the chaplain that what he was doing point out that there's some tension in the law on this point and then there was a hearing blow in which a smart man strange as it's rested his head with two smart lawyers and trying to figure out what the law is that created a situation where if the issue is a fiction or not that the government actor has to look out there and say well boys there's that clear bright line and that bright lines that i can't do that well there's a question of whether that one was here is what i'm getting oh there's a lot of case documents so this is the panel this case so which is not say that the court the court involved in one made a determination but it is to say that it doesn't make it any other  camp to discriminate citing paul well if a panel published or not post gallagher subscribe to the view that there has to be  foolish to discriminate for any interference claiming it was not predicated on it was just on that individual's inability to express his religious beliefs because based on his bible why but the argument seems to me would be open and make the argument that that granted and i'll accept i know that calgary came after all that's not my point my point is that one could argue until otherwise told that religious beliefs and practices case it was i was discriminated against because i am of a certain religion so was a fall this is not the case for ten for a decade after a while not a single case two separate claims one is that you took away my belongings because i'm jewish because i'm catholic because i'm muslim because one can do or that in addition to that you also burdens my religious  don't say absolutely not again your honor even so i would think the original motion would be folded into that but regardless as the tell you here i have the benefit of the fact that you can affirm any grounds that could justify that additionally  where liability is to be imposed upon an individual defendant for discrimination in violation of the st amendment a plaintiff must prove a discriminatory purpose supported by evidence of the defendant's subjective vis a discrimination or you can have a discrimination st amendment or a discrimination equal protection claim and equal help with that exact situation but i don't know i understand that the point was that and on the stand that didn't happen and most religious belief would you point to in your briefing that would suggest that you view this as being a discrimination claim as opposed to a burning a religious belief well your honor i absolutely that in williams you cut out again i'm very sorry if i could ask for a rd one what about the claim against the chaplain in williams your honor i believe that the individual liability claim was subject to the intentional dismissal of the claim against both the warden and the chaplain and there wasn't any discussion about the chaplains motivation in iraq about that your honor my reading of it was that the absence of any possible allegation of burdening a belligerent you could have a claimed is predicated on burdening sincerely held religious beliefs and i claim that's predicated on actually invidious discrimination because if your religion you accept that premise right your honor i cannot given the state defendants and the different legal standards and that's what i'm seeing from paul's williams and cart that said the state of the ball is unclear and the circuits are all over the map and how they evaluate these claims in the th circuit is st individuals should control that would ensure that the prison entities have rules that reasonably relates penelas going tryst whenever they would burden sincerely held religious belief but also insulate prison officials from making these types of very close judgment calls courts have repeatedly struck at the supreme court and this court has instructed that and this is from the walk in since record cases but prison officials may be appropriately questioned whether a prisoner is preference i just want to get clear i'm i'm a little confused why you think that this is such a tough call and therefore that you have to extrapolate to your institution visa versus individual standard i mean you dubious religious accommodate approving of dubious religious accommodation very low threat evidence refreshed over gallagher why wouldn't it under gallagher and under our prior precedent let's assume or under the gallagher why wouldn't it have been  obvious decision to the chaplain that he could not rely on some consultant on messianic jewish diet in denying mister ross on a diet and i want to say that not obvious that it is what the individual thinks their dietary preferences are based on their religion as long as they are sincerely felt it seems to last pretty clear on that at that time to two points are on a st if you read the grievances see the primary rationale that be thomas williams and car all at odds with the cases applying to conscious interference i think that's clear your honor at least he knew that was being said i can see that i'm out of time so in closing i would like to say that at the time