who's been had been residing in and working in united states for in many cases in many years in h one b status and many of those plaintiffs have approved permanent labor certification certified by the department of labor after their employers tested the domestic labor market for their jobs and davis for that reason started the permanent rule the process for gaining permanent residen statutory framework governing the employment of the plaintiffs in h one b status the proclamation doesn't simply supplement the statute it negates the one b program which the department of state then subsequently under the proclamation redefined contrary to statute by imposing novel criteria on the program further preventing plaintiffs from coming back to the united states to rejoin their family members or take up prior existing employment relationships with their employers an h one b status now the proclamation stepped into a space that congress already addressed with respect to the h one b program and for that reason the proclamation about just statute versus proclamation because a proclamation is based on a statute and statutory authority given the question is whether or not the statutory authority given  in can be squared with the preexisting statutory authority i mean it's not a man you're framing your argument as if to suggest the president is acting against a statute the president is acting pursuant to a statu and eighty two f that's exactly right i mean you you can both in the prior case and in this case so you can't forget that there is presidential authority the question is whether it fits you can assume that the the the prior visa provisions are the only things on the books there are not the f provision is on the book as well and it says a president can find that the entry of aliens or any class of aliens would be detrimental to the interests of the united states and sprinkle said that it brought authority and assuming there's no unlawful delegation thing you have to square it up you can't just assume that what the president has done is non statutory as against the provisions covering visas that's not accurate that specifically addressed and resolved the issue that the proclamation now override to express that in trying to why screen court said they would assume that could not be done and that's what's happening here basically the president issued a proclamation that negated the h one b program and eliminated that event subsequently of course handed it off to the department of state and and authorized them to come up with exceptions for what they did in coming up with those next steps as they completely redefined and revise the h one b program to make it appear as something completely contrary to what congress crafted in a very detailed fashion in a number of inner locking in related statutes and that's the problem here that's the statutory violation it isn't that the it wasn't that there wasn't a triggering mechanism course meant to stand there's to t says would be detrimental to the interests in the united states can you imagine anything that might be dutchmen only you know on its interests of the united states that would run against what has already been provided in h one b and h to be there might be some not where you're repeating or overwriting i missed an argument because we were discussing prior cases where the president says i'm aware of those provisions but given this circumstance that we now face it's so  resolved that issue yep and that's the debt if the fact that the president is pointing to is not being considered by congress the president is saying what i'm looking at now is detrimental the interests of the to let them be in play but i have that authority in the statute otherwise what is a statute mean if it's detrimental to the interests of the united states don't don't make it the business on to see how far you go and i hear what you saying about trump but i'm not sure that's really answering it suppose it's a sort of census just detrimentally is united states that has not been addressed by congress specifically oh well then that's fine and the appellant in this case in our case in the panda case are h one b workers full stop we're not concerned about any other programs in our case ok we're concerned about what the president did with respect to the h one b program in the gate that program and prevent the entry of the plaintiffs in our case who have long standing relationships and ties the united states through family and employment relationships they have employers with  they've been employed as h one b employees some of them for many years and on that basis many of them have gone to the permanent labor certification process suppose the president found and it was more than plausible so forget the facts of the case room and it was more than plausible that continuing with the h one b program at this moment in our history will steer easily exacerbate unemployment in the united states and cause a serious economic harms and you couldn't really you couldn't beat us so you're arguing to us we have findings that is sufficient to show that they will seriously exacerbate unemployment in the lives states and affect our economic condition you mean to say you couldn't do that under the such and not the way the statutes written currently could not do it it could not well but the well but you're not actually presenting a hypothetical with respect to the h one b program that's what the president has done in this case he's overridden and completely negated the i don't know what people who aren't trying to what i'm trying to you all are debating whether or not he has falling support t that in fact the factual findings with respect to the h one b program as set out in proclamation contradict the bureau of labor statistics to everyone for the government culture contradicting the other but that's not our case we're not contesting the here no he has not suspended he's basically negated the program he's made it to the program doesn't exist despite the fact that there were already certification to come by the department of i'm out of time much as any other questions from any other what is just it's all me again the language and trump that you think makes this positive even though he's fine something that's that's from the lee interest the united states you can't suspend not eliminat eleven there's a provision there where the supreme court indicated that we may assume that eleven e to f does not allow the president to expressly override particular provisions of the i and a and then relatedly late supreme court said that they would allow the proclamation in that particular case that involved of course factual findings about what that about terrorism related grounds for excluding particular foreign nationals the supreme court said that this is not a situation where quote congress has stepped into this space and solved the exact problem and quote that that's exactly what happened here congress did step into that space and spoken very has stepped into this space to the th of space and they've said when the president finds that the entry of the ins or of any class of aliens any class would be detrimental to the interests of the united states so congress has stepped into all these spaces and it looks like the twelve f is a larger authority than the the h one b but you want to credit h one b as being sapir ia and i'm not sure why judge tables question to me as to just suspension is not a limitation suspension is suspension and it's very different from expiring something you are certain very strong terms and always just paragraph beginning congress a decision to authorize two for one to what's been looking at different pages i have no such paragraph or two for ones who i'll look for it later the prior right it was an apparent overlap because they had you can argue they had in a way dealt with dr menal interests the united states with respect to unemployment so you could make the argument there you are making a more a much more sweeping you're saying f just doesn't exist in so far as one b is concerned and we're right but i think you i think your honor made the point in the last annele which is that if national insurers is the trigger ok that's fine right but congress already addressed that national interest in this case regarding h the h one b program because it listed the conditions for domestic employment or police thank you good morning again i'm matthew bell over and i represent the united states picking up off of some of the discussion the court has had with mr fournier i would emphasize that eleven talks about suspending and what the president has done here is impose limitations in addition to those that exist in the ins he has tied them temporarily to the pandemic and as the supreme court noted in hawaii the forty supreme court pointed out that it's not a searching inquiry and just to clarify what i what i may have mistakenly said previously the government's position is that all of these findings are clearly factually accurate these are predict judgments and so i understood the hypothetical about something else to be if the president you know used incorrect math or something clearly is demonstrably false then you might say that the findings fall short even under the supreme court's limit in corrie under hawaii but as the supreme court noted whether the president's chose a method of addressing the perceived risks just is justified from a policy perspective that's irrelevant to the scope of his eleven a to f authority and so here you're talking about predictive findings about the labor and labor economics and if i could give you know imagine congress passed a statute in the middle of one thousand saying given the pandemic we're repealing or we're you know barring entry under these classifications for certain period time because you know we make the findings the president's made here on a rational basis for you i think that would clearly pass muster as a statue of the president has done at least that and a number of prior proclamations have included very very limited findings the president you know had fairly full some findings appear in the proclamation that it's not as in hawaii where they had this study your honor if i could clarify it in hawaii the the proclamation discussed a study and s and other agencies doing that here the president cites to and i'll get the exact language just so that i'm not imprecise the president says that the secretaries of labor and homeland security quote found that the president and mission of workers within several nonimmigrant visa categories also poses and he's talking also because he was talking about his prior proclamation also poses a risk of displacing and disadvantaging united states workers during the current recovery  and then he goes on to say american workers compete against foreign nationals for jobs in every sector of our economy including its millions of aliens and united states for found time for counsel i know that but it's not as though there's a footnote or anything citing what basis he says is that good terry's say this but on the basis of your honor i think this goes to the supreme court's language in hawaii that the president is not required to connect every dots or to know this is not connecting dots this is i had two secretaries who made findings i am sure secretaries that made these recommendations and i find the president's the one making the finding for purposes of two  supposed to suppose that there's no basis for these recommendations that's one dollar and two dollars is that literally my hypothetical is correct that the secretaries did make these recommendations at a five pm so your honor to twelve f or choirs the president to make a finding in hawaii there were similar arguments made that the president has shown his work and the secretaries haven't shown their work the not only rejected that argument but it noted that in the forty three prior proclamations or on many of them it could be as limited as a paragraph or a couple of sentences that were fine but i hypothetically i think the finding needs to be contained in the proclamation that that's what i understand hawaii to say here we have findings in the proclamation that are sufficient the president has made predictive findings related to labor economics and the labor market in light of this unprecedented in hawaii that the supreme court just ignored the study i'm not saying that the supreme court ignored the study i'm saying the supreme court was clear that in citing two other proclamations recommended the president if you were a proclamation barring immigration period and that's what the proclamation states the proclamation different it doesn't necessarily mean that it's sales here but it was a very different court didn't need to have any doubts about ringback the five pm cocktail casual recommendation not this they have been studied a five pm cut casual recommendation if the president had the exact same findings he has here at the test in hawaii is looking at the findings that are in the proclamation because that's the sole prerequisite for it and these findings are clearly in excess of many of the others  could give one example of proclamation six i know but now it's all you know the weight of something and the fact that you have you know a one thousand findings that are all right you know that doesn't help your case i'm just trying to understand what you understand the congress intended when it said the president must find that he needs to act because failing to do so fine but i just want to be clear that the government has not addressed this question all right it doesn't want to address this question and i think that rel how our limited review is not that i think let me have one more attempt and cut me off the government's position is that you don't look behind the finding and we are conducting the hawaii to twelve f analysis you don't look behind the finding that's on the face of the proclamation and so in your hypothetical you have the same findings here those findings should be hell and the findings are often much more limited than what we have here predictive findings they are not clearly false and the president is making judgments about what he thinks the labor market would be appropriate and i think this goes to some of the questions judge as words had for plaintiffs counsel about being aware of the h one b and h to be but determining and light of step into a space and solve a problem that has already been addressed by congress but f is designed for you know an unexpected change circumstance but no no but and we've gone through this again before i don't want to do it again but i just want you to understand my concern you stepping into a statutory space something like into the space and solve the exact problem and if the reason given is unemployment bold and that's the only thing we're talking about and that's what the that truman old to the interests of the united states is about that has been addressed in one b and to be because there are certification procedures that address that and that's the that's the strange that i think you agree that if i think you can tell me if you don't agree that if what the president is doing and is f to step into a space that has already been handled by congress then we've got a concern you know i think ask provides the president assuming that he makes findings and you have this you know it's a suspension it's  suspension it's not a permanent are to add to the prior requirements and so i would disagree we think f which exudes deference provides that authority to suspend based on categories but then what you really effectively doing is saying for those two categories where you're arguing they're adding two so your findings have to deal with that to the unemployment has already been addressed in in the one b and to be categories congress has explained how that should be had when a minute you're saying but the president's invoking f now because this is an even greater unemployment problem some sort and and that causes us to wonder will win where's that funding made what's the greater because one b and to be address unemployment as it might or displacing american workers that might be a threat to the american economy because there's an arrangement to deal with it so how can you use f to step into that space that's been dealt with because you're reacting to an unforeseen circumstance the president discusses unemployment in light of the kovac one thousand dollars sort of impact on the labor market and we think my concern is this temp or a wag argument because those expressed concerns about dealing with the exactly the same space in other words it's kind of like a normal statutory interpretation if you deal with the space it's already been dealt with by congress then we have to worry a little bit about your using f to kind of override something and congress didn't give you the authority to do it and your answer to that is no no no they didn't really deal with it because now there's a temporal lag that's not going know suspend in a space that congress has already addressed in the proclamation had to do with the public charge rule having a provision about health care but so you know we think truthful f gives the president brought us to work it exudes deference in every cla and he needs to make a finding based on the situation and i apologize i know i'm over time i don't have any more questions or counsel did you have anything you needed tad know as in the prior case i'd be it that the finding here is false because with respect to each b one visa holders the statute itself provides protection for the u s labor market right right why isn't that the way to look at the statute it's not an override he simply suspending it because of unforeseen serious circumstances that the united states falls finds itself right now in other words what i'm saying is as you think about whether the findings are adequate i'm no longer sure you can take account of the fact that the that the statute the iranian statute already review but has he provided information to suggest that the h b one program is not adequately protecting the mr works because of the unusual circumstances united states finds itself in but that's one question i think there's two points here one is that the with respect the h one b program which is a skilled work program in which congress gave much more enhanced detail about how that program significant doubt in how this was rolled out a proclamation simply said no entry full stop and the program with respect to people  limited but more and more specifically the proclamation then handed this issue off to the secretary of state to publish exceptions under a national interest guideline those exceptions which appear in the appendix ninety five dollars to ninety six dollars completely redefine the h one b program impose conditions on it that congress rejected and transport other conditions from other visa programs and incorporate them into the h one b program to make them necessary conditions for obtaining of these and  re entering the united states so that's exactly how this thing was rolled out shows that that's not a suspension that was simply replacing the h or b program redefining it y know putting in the criteria the congress of the the rejected or put into other programs and through the secretary of state's action turned it into something that it's not and made those necessary conditions for individuals who were otherwise to be classified as h one b workers who have been approved by the department of labor and a part of homeland security already impose new conditions redefining that program and making those necessary conditions for their own troops that's goes beyond sus