inaccurate assumptions about the differences between men and women at the task that they have to fill and the government but here is all the more demanding because of the summary judgment posture the government has to show that every reasonable fact finder would conclude based on this r these regulations d applied it went from the lower level general population areas to those who are on death row or at this there's a lot of different quite complicated major classification then there's the level three to one general security classification all four of those plastic patients the people the general population but the department does the niggly distinguish between a prophecy that people in security of for can get and those that in security levels one and three can get and all of those categories including the lowest security classification men are entitled to less property that even the most dangerous woman i woman in security last vacation level or so that's one of the sort of features of this case this is now apples to apples prevent the flow of property between the sort of low less dangerous security prisoners and those high dangerous security prisoners and so they need to be you know that some think comparison as to why it is that a woman who has maybe committed a murder and maybe tried to escape herself  feels good about how she loves is more amenable to rehabilitation that that they also said women have a different psychological makeup to men and it's male inmates such that appearance is linked to successful recovery but there's nothing in the administrative record or on the record before is unable to satisfy that button that leaves a summary judgment in favor of the side and when i think in this context that would mean it would strike down a property schedule of the government would of course be able to come back and rewrite a new property schedule and i think the district court would have discretion for example to stay that effective any injunction for a reasonable period of time for the government to go away and come up you know actually engage in the kind if reason now is this the supreme court's cases require i think because of the unusual posture of this case where the government has changed position are the government on this which is that legitimate and logical interests are a significant fact that that need to be taken into account just like any you know compelling government interest you know that it's something where the government it has stereotyping and there are quite an assessment of the evidence before the decision maker requires an assessment of how that how that is then point out in the scheme is the scheme itself well tayla and i think all of those questions can be addressed within the framework of saying you know we trust driving is an area traditional state regulation is an area where there is significant deference given to the state but even within that framework the intermediate spirity can still be a demanding stand it and the government has to deal you know at least a little bit more and what it did in this case were introduced hardly department's decision to have separate property schedules in the st place for male and female inmates that a part of decision making process in connection with that decision and that level the record sufficiently shows under intermediate scruby and distinctions the department has certainly is more data that the department could introduce we think there comstock data that is in the record it is sufficient to show that there are significant differences in the security environment in men's and women's prison so for instance the data in the record at  that data in the record don't speak to incidents of community by individual prisoners but i think it's reasonable for the department so craft probably regulations not just that the individual prisoner level whatever but based in part on the overall security environment that your posing down to argument is argument is that there is no data that justifies that difference which appears to be based simply on gender by the host yeah a couple responses to yet he is talking about his personal knowledge he was at the time of his declaration he was the department official in charge of formulating the property regulations so he had expertise in this area if you talk about you know his his own experience given that and i believe you also reference const at date out in connection with bruno that data is not itself attached to the record unlike the data for security incidents but it certainly could be compiled if necessary but i don't think there's any reason to or has no further questions were prepared to submit at this point but only happy to address any additional question has the highest level of it essentially just has the number of violent offenses committed by men and there is different categories doesn't even have a capital number is it just as the aggregate number of cause you know there are at that time there after five thousand women and california prisons are one hundred and twenty five thousand differences between security classifications i think it is telling that that that the state mentions administrative segregation i want to be clear so within the general population every single prisoner arrest is categorized as a one to four based on on the same thing as the as the basic security classification and women who are in the highest security classification the most dangerous women are still in title dozens more items of property and men in the lowest security classification and we didn't hear anything i think from the other side th is what they were trying to do but in translating that they have today in gauging at least some reason announced as some collection of data that they can't just rely on the assumptions they have in their mind which is seemingly what happened here they assumed that women are more likely to respond well