this cases where the court fine down jurisdiction because they're the district were directed to government to take specific actions they're releasing class members of the company parents that's a point that this court emphasized as a point of distinction in its recent health processes declarations of thirty percent rate of exposure and we're infection that requires all sorts of intake measures and what we want to do is basically keep this at disability near the border to minimize the amount of transportation of exposed those infected folks into the interior of the country where they did you could you could expel all those folks very quickly as a practical matter it's difficult to let's say you know i one thousand votes right say three hundred are infected or exposed and as a practical matter you can only eat sending out nine hundred if you haven't gotten everyone who's infected but by sending out ninety percent you've reduced you know presumably the number of infected folks from three hundred to thirty and that helps that helps minimize the introduction o for why you know it it takes longer longer for some than others but you know the goal is to get to the process is quickly as possible you know the average we've kept down and sometimes it takes one again that it goes back to my point about difficulty in transitioning from where we are now with the kids in the hotels if there's going to be you know the order requires that they be transferred to a license still in but as soon as the order takes the fed and you ok i only have a few comments in response to my colleagues my opponent's comments the st is that in terms of modifying the settlement we do not believe that the district court's order does anything of the kind mostly what it does is it allows accommodation for the defendants in terms of bottlenecks and other sorts of actions in circumstances but basically says that salomon applies and you shall follow it and subject to two mandatory detention and so the idea that when and according to her but it's a settlement so as to include or exclude a particular group of of children it seems that there court decision was sound in holding that what applies here is which agency has the decision making authority to decide when children are going to be to the chain where they're going to be detained whether they're going to be detained under title later title forty two  in all cases the record is uncontroverted that that agency is the department of homeland security so as a as a practical matter if the decision to detain or or or the decision regarding jurisdiction is ease and so what ends up happening is that the d h s s takes it upon itself to unilaterally decide which children it's going to stand off to a licensed placement and which children it's not and all this ordered all this or does is to say that yes you are you're entitled to do that as much as you want the h s but you must also send children who you are going to hold for more than seventy two hours to a licensed placement as this settlement requires so the question now so dissent five hundred dollars children and over the last month or so to license placements we don't know how many of those would have been required it would have been required to transfer under the settlement that's that's not a number that we're privy to  you know my my opponent talks about the lack of evidence of real harm in hotels will a lot of that the dearth of evidence on that is because the government holds these children essentially incommunicado it's run volunteer lawyers out of the facilities out of the hotels when they've tried to do to get in and assist these children and so any walk of bad debts as to how these children are actually being treated is due to the government's own secrecy and larry in how it's treating  own juvenile coordinators have filed a number of reports in which they report that the facilities they are has that are licensed are about ninety seven percent on occupied their opulent so there's plenty of room and should and should the government begin bumping up against some kind of real limit on its ability to safely a comedy children and license placements it's welcome to come to the independent monitor and players and say we have cause for using unlicensed placements and at that point we can we as a bridge we can cross when we get to it but for the time being there is absolutely no reason to believe that the government could not accommodate these children in fact if you want to look at the government's own declaration  held in hotels as forty two program where the governments yes that's the sky is going to fall because these numbers are so large i have to declarations talked about a number of around five hundred we do not know why this is something that the government has kept to itself the criteria and grounds for its standing classified children from title forty two dollars to title eight is something we are not privy to nor has the government seen fit to inform us of what those criteria are and again this goes back to my point that what the government really is asking for has certain extent certain extent it does your honor as expeditiously as possible would mean you know if there's room the government should place children these license placements in fact the district court's order allows more leeway and time for  government to delay in providing children with a license placement than the the agreement would appear to to contemplate so again this is a this is another underscores that this order does not modify the not necessary even as even and in ministry of state for that purpose but certainly if there is going to be an additional administrative stay this order is already now i don't know whatever it is a number of weeks old and we have been and unable to to monitor the treatment of children in these facilities and and so forth so that if there is going to be an additional administrative stay of this order that we be permitted to carry out the monitoring functions that the government agreed to a settlement and was happening is not something i'm in a position to to answer your honor as again we've not been able to get any reliable information out of the government even their own statistics are all over the map when it comes to the number of children it's and where they're being held and so forth  and so we would hope through having the ability to effectively monitor the conditions then and numbers of children who are currently at hotels to be able to answer questions just like that but frankly right now this is this situation with children  hotels is sort of a black hole the government has refused to give up information on any kind of a coherent basis regarding his treatment of these children and in fact as i've said before has run out of lawyers have attempted to come in and assist the children just get that question that of course from our i would say yes your honor the settlement is designed to set up a bright line which is is the facility licensed or is it not the safe and sanitary provision is aimed at regulating the treatment of children before they're placed into a licensed facility so that once they're placed in the license syllabi it's up to state licensing authorities to determine whether there is a so what itself meets state licensing standards which will exceed the base standard of saving sanitary that's required and temporary housing prior to the transfer of children to a licensed placement and the district court's order permits a brief period of hotelling in the event that the government is just simply arranging transportation and so under those circumstances a hotel stay is permissible as i read the district  order there's never been a problem under the floor a settlement with the government taking the child out of a license placement approximates a physical removal and when preparing physical removal as it is imminent then  you know it's permissible for them to be held in hotels but the problem is is that we're seeing children held for far longer than a few days in some type and some cases up to a month in a hotel and there's no way of justifying that as being in proximate imminent would say just briefly on the available for them to monitor what you're doing is there any reason why big government should not permit and cooperate with the monitoring required by the agreement on the court's order  there's a plausible argument that there is no you may be about to lose as to whether or not the floor is agreement wise and the government said well we don't think it applies to you don't be a lawyer and leaving all we've got these kids isolated by themselves monitored and when they're talking to their mom and saying if you tell your mom where you are you're not going to proctor or tomorrow there's something deeply wrong with what's in there i think you're relying on a number of years the status in the record in some cases and i think again this is short term custody