allowing her service dog to enter this building and so far today it seems the seventh circuit is going to allow my client that same simple reasonable accommodation but i but i wonder if it would be appropriate for this court after having after that the marshal's office had granted that accommodation to enquire as to whether or not she had a disability or is this was a service talk as long as the dog wasn't disruptive let me cut you off here because there are a couple of things about this case that i think we need to discuss one of them is that this is not as i understand it just a straightforward tennessee against lane case about potential litigants access to a state court house that's what tennessee against lane is about it's an  case it's about a little kids access to the courthouse it's a different disability but the same fundamental statute what this is is your request to us to intervene in the way a particular state court judge is handling her court room and implicit in your request is the notion that there is no appeal with vailable within the state court system if she has gone beyond the boundaries that are permitted by both the federal law and the state laws that apply to every court in this country including the circuit court of cook county and i think you need you hard job to convince me that the federal courts have the job of supervising every order that is state court judge gives let's assume your client has a legitimate need for the service dog somebody else might not and so to say that a judge can't even ask is is a very strong statement first of all judge i think i disagree with your initial promise they're not bringing in tennessee against l i am saskia thing you have to understand that the first time that the judge my client was barred from the poor after the person barred she came to the court she filed this case and then she returned to the court and the judge again cases occasionally well you know if that is and in correct order if there is no sufficient factual basis for the order barring a litigant from a court room then you take an appeal to the illinois  and they are going to say you know there's a right to be there in the courtroom whether it's a civil case or not well this is a somewhat it maybe is comparable because she needs a dog with her or maybe somebody else needs you know wheelchair access or somebody else needs a sign or so that they can follow what's going on in the court room i don't see why the federal court is the right place to go to solve this problem my client needs access on a daily which dealt with civil contempt but also internal management of the state court proceedings the district court says i don't have any business here he just is very clear the only thing he's dismissing with prejudice is the first court sided  the district judge himself in his ruling said why there is subject matter jurisdiction in the federal court it's page six paragraph one and i'm somewhat paraphrasing and i apologize for what i might call license the court has jurisdiction here to the extent that sikes has asserted claims in which she has personally suffered an injury in fact in order to survive a motion to dismiss the complaint must allege that sykes was excluded from participation or deny the benefits of the services programs or activities of a public entity because of her own disability once that if this if this if the federal court has jurisdiction to hear this case and i think it's absurd to say that the federal court doesn't have jurisdiction to hear eighty eight complaints are let me quote then the question is whether any of those other things those doctrines that the defendants put forward bar my client well there too and here is the arguably moot because the mother has passed away and so not clear if there's anything left and the damages claim i know it's a title two case not a title one case but if you're trying to get money damages against the state  in applying all of these doctrines was based not on mike why and it was based on the fact that my client's mother and i don't represent my client's mother and all of those documents do i would argue do look fly to me if this case was brought seeking relief for my clients mother but we're not doing that we're not asking this court to give relief to my client's mother the relief we're asking specific to my client and i would say by the rest of my time all right welch i think your first guess your honor good morning may please the court i'm mary welsh i'm here on behalf of the state defendants as you know on splitting the time with mr mann who is representing the private defendants and he will be speaking about the issues unique to them such as the  sykes's claims here separate and apart from the claims that she was trying to bring on behalf of her mother the central focus of rycroft feldman is that only the supreme court under section two hundred fifty seven has the power the jurisdiction to review state court judgments that she's a nonparty and the supreme court's you know exxon mobil study face again history's case really does seem to be an effort on the part of the court to rein in  and striking her request for certain kinds of relief a j we should have taken an appeal to the illinois pella court and said this is in violation of my rights under both federal and illinois law yes absolutely and i mean this is this is exactly what this is this is precisely what worker feldman is designed to do it's designed to stop people who have an order that has taught well in order like this one which told her that she couldn't do something i mean she wanted she she wanted to  into it and once she was trying to do that then disorder came down which and she's never said well i can't appeal this i can't go under rule three zero seven which is for preliminary injunctions i couldn't have filed a motion for a supervisory order an original action i couldn't have filed an original action for mandamus again the whole point of ripper feldman is that only the united states supreme court no matter how erroneous a state court order is only or unconstitutional or viol in some other way a federal law only in the united states supreme court has jurisdiction to review that order and i ask you this question i mean that's a very well established proposition obviously but i thought i understood m show just as he was sitting down to say that this case actually isn't linked in particular anymore with this longstanding dispute was going on about the mother is that your understanding or is this really  change your honor it's news to me i mean i had no idea that she had any sort of regular reason to go to the circuit court of cook county i mean we don't know that from the complaint and so i mean that's a case for another day i guess but but in terms of this case really what what she's complaining about other than the you know the claims related to her mother is that she was ousted from this court ground by the judge and again that's that's is this court setting gary one of the sort of hallmarks of a wrecker feldman case is when you're suing the judge just a court judge and that's exactly what happened here is sort of arguing that a person with a disability a could you have a straight up complaint complaining about not having access to the state court without having a case pending before the state well they were to come in i guess you'd have to have some rule like being a witness or have some other interest went to the daily center and if somehow you weren't allowed you know you asked for a reasonable modification and you weren't granted it then you could bring in a da claim you know you would have had you would have suffered an injury where the you know related is do you have an injury that's feldman the central question for rick or feldman is do you have an injury that separable from a court order since there can't be review of state court orders and here the injury is the state court order that you know because her or her claims are not separable in any way from the from the court order here judge mccarthy's court order worker feldman requires that that this court find that there's  appealable as we explained and so it's not the final judgment in the but it doesn't have to be a final judgment for a profession to apply just has to be appealable order if there are no more questions thank you  please the court i'm here to address any issues with respect to what would happen should this court find that there was jurisdiction in the district court to spec to my client carolyn torque and in the supplement the complaints back to her and peter  very unequivocal kettle cites one case which talks about the court appointed disability coordinator someone who is in a court employee e g l is not according ploy is not employed by the court has no power to do anything if someone complained s argument and yes we do agree with respect to any dispute in the guardianship that's moot that's over with respect to any issue in the now it's the dissidents a state that's not before this court ok and it's irrelevant with respect to the supplemental complaint it was not filed properly there's never been any showing any argument as to how it could properly been filed additionally shown in the documents we filed in the motion dismissed below the attorneys at issue has never been stated carolyn tort is never alleged to have done anything except other in a generalized way for which we have no idea i urge this court to affirm the trial this repor two two zero six twenty sixteen w l nine zero seven seven seven zero it's it's interesting because in that case it's very it's not that the facts are almost identical except that what happened there is that the  the sheriff didn't allow a person with p t s d to enter the courthouse with his service dog and in that case the federal court said that they didn't even question jurisdiction there was no question about that the court federal court had jurisdiction over that claim like i don't see how that's distinguished from what i'm saying but it's also interesting that in spirit i mean that's well established but i guess the problem for us is that it's very hard to get away from the fact that this source of the order assessing whether the dog was going to be in the courtroom or not was the state court judge in the middle of handling the state court case and how one gets to a separate federal claim filed on that basis is arguably different from a federal claim based on made the courthouse live policy that no dogs come in or failure to have accessible rest rooms or you know any number of other cases which are certainly going to be fine and that the a b a the when you start micromanaging the state court judges handling of the proceeding in front of her and you say to federal courts in a parachute in as opposed to taking an appeal through the state system that's when you run into trouble again my client was a pro se litigant one that we're we're not asking this court we be very clear about it because we are not asking this court to overrule any order if she was going to file an appeal she'd have been asking my course to overrule or to change some order that was entered in the sort of critical you surely are you are saying that change the order judge mccarthy so that the dog the service dog can sit there in the court room she attends court right i mean i don't know what you're asking for if not that yes but it's the actual in cruelty that is the violation of the american with disabilities act it's not the order so that's a strong position because just because somebody says you know i mean i happen to love my cats you know if i said you know i want hats here on the bench with me maybe somebody said you really need them or not you know there could be a brief inquiry is get to to twelve the six she should be allowed to amend their complaint and fair out these claims because she really never was and she's a pro se litigant at the very least she should have been allowed one shot at the