disparate ten person limit on worship services is subject to strict scrutiny and cannot overcome it not because he was not new for two reasons number one the governor has led to the cult complete and total discretion to return to the the old policy and the governor has not there from about the legality of his policy on the contrary he the vigorously defending it before this court before the lower courts and also at the supreme court now the most fact the supreme court set in already versus nike that it is the governor who has a burden and is a formidable bore them all making it absolutely clear that he will not return to the allegedly wrongful conduct the governor has not done to return back to the policy and in fact if you look at the governor's executive order thirty eight which was the most recent one on may th the one that announced the change in policy where clauses in the st two remains likely that the governor can and will return back to the policy and i would also be remiss if i didn't point out that the timing of the policy change is very suspect because this policy change was announced mere it was not until phase five that the restrictions were supposed to go away and the governor said i was going to take place twelve to eighteen months down the road in fact is that it would be one of three conditions would have to happen either a vaccine would of heart this is just a litigation driven change of policy maintaining complete and total discretion to return back the nd reason why this case was not noticed because the dispute is capable of repetition yet evading review karna which is on page seventeen of his brief on this capable of repetition the issue card was based on the premise from the supreme court where the supreme court says quote then those good faith representation that they had no see it in force the requirement that restrictions being narrowly tailored in the least restrictive means available in the cases of of an infectious disease pandemic  are they required to st try less restrictive measures and wait and see if they fail are they required to try in our federal system to the least exigencies are such that that cannot be done what the governor would have to do is quote seriously consider other alternatives and make out a compelling case as to why they would not work and so either you try a little or if you cannot try them you have to show in the record that you actually seriously considered them and found them wanting for good reason it's not enough to simply say that you're going to sit down it's not enough to see if we say that they would not work you have to have a compelling s this is the argument you're now making much of your body supposes that there is discrimination against religion which is what you contend takes this case outside the scope which i wonder whether it's proper to suppose and supposed to argue if you look at the california case when it got to the supreme court concerts or movies and the dissent but the right comparison group with something like grocery store it seems to me we need to start there why is it that you think the right comparison group is grocery stores  accept the premise that all the shoppers only go and find walmart for ten minutes i i think that several of them could spend a lot going on there certainly no legal requirement that they go only go in for a certain amount of time of the employees are there for hours and hours of time they have there is no restriction upon them in terms of having employees meetings in terms of interacting with customers touching the same products the same credit card of the same cash in all of those respects these places are actually assume that is that folks will change their behavior at wal mart but then i'm sure they will continue to do what they've always done before the virus which is to have closed meetings or to have handshaking or hugging or all those other things when in fact disavow any contact that they've taken in the past or make clear that they will back or take it again in the future and federation advertising this court explaining that it does not presume bad faith on the heart of the government so when there has been a voluntary cessation of activity by the government this court will look instead to see whether the reasons for stopping the activity were genuine and therefore cannot reasonably be expected to really occur and here we have made that showing for stripper that's exactly what worries me the governor's decision he said was tied to the current situation if cases of coronavirus court's test is something like whether it is absolutely clear that the alleged wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur and that's a quotation from one of the supreme court's decisions i wonder how it is absolutely clear that he can't make or if the governor is reserving his right to change the rule to show that there was a reasonable expectation of the conduct reoccurring for two reasons the st is that the ordering or didn't seemed different and nd it was simply a proposal under the city had not disavowed its previous or peeled order but here the governor has i think that posed by he will impose such a restriction on religious gatherings no it has he said that he would treat we're just gatherings different than the secular gatherings that need to challenge we have too many unknown variables right now so the the mere possibility that this type of restriction might be necessary on a religious gatherings and that it might operate in the same way but there are guards to thank you know gatherings is not enough to show a reasonable medical research and now we know a lot more about the virus for example we know that it doesn't transmit as easily outdoors or even indoors or if the window is open or there is more ventilation and as we've learned more about the governor because your honor this virus has been so unprecedented that even though we know more about the virus there are so a lot more for us to learn so if the governor were to make such a declaration which i can point out was not required by the supreme court standard then the possibility is still out there even though it's hypothetical that a new strain of this virus could come by in illinois and more restrictions of being necessary even if this court finds that the voluntary more than an hour for a long time at a place like walmart you do not go to the store it's to stand together in groups for hours at a time certain sample people who are got cash registers go to their separate stations which are spaced apart people who are task with restocking and i'll go and complete that task and then leave that space for the intention of working in the stores if not to stand together for longer periods of time there of course risks with working at a grocery store  warehouse just like there are with but conducting almost any other activity currently e l thirty two with tailored to those risks for example it everything nice that people stand in manufacturing plants that asked manufacturing plants to limit the amount of wines that they operate and stagger among other things that people will not be grouped together for long periods of time simply grocery stores are supposed to have one way i also people aren't passing each other and employees are is useful here because that's half true mcqueeney is to compare secular contracts that endangers the government's interest in the same way here meeting for a lecture and the school or for a concert or movie theater is so because at that time the virus is spreading so rapidly eleanor i and the national guidance was to limit gatherings it seems appropriate to limit gatherings of ten people now that the situation has increased and no no i just apply the st is that the government action be rooted in a substantial public health interest such as of course present here where the governor was attempting to curb the spread of pope at ninety and the nd is that the government's action does not go someone yes your honor we think that this exemption actually shows that the governor was not discriminating against religion for many organizations whether secular or religious providing these types of charitable services as central to their mission are their religion but these types of activities can be for invited without extended verbal interaction in close quarters someone can be let into stay somewhere in the church without that person in the past or being grouped together for long periods of time the church committee got on tables for people to take without standing together and rooms for long periods of time so the governor was trying to allow whatever activity could give him information he had about the virus after time and so he recognized that many religious organizations find it in financial to provide such services and recognizing that this activity with different than standing together for example as a lecturer at a school into we see for example around the country the exercise of some kind of to shore right has more controversy will than others it's pretty hard to find him in this against religion elected leader states but it's not hard to find people who are elected to office and want to for example close greater restrictions on access to firearms or gre restrictions on access to worship services yes so how do we go about distinguishing between but here we don't have any evidence of pretext if we look at the events leading up to the issuance e o thirty two dollars we were in the beginning months of the pandemic and what we didn't know is that it was spreading quickly and gatherings and it spread quickly from people speaking and thinking but given that information at the time there there was no evidence that there was pretext rather there was evidence of the governor's order as a consonant with medical advice of course risks and marching or in protesting in large groups and those types of things are occurring now but at the same time there aren't any restrictions on religious gatherings so the governor has made a  choice given that the situation illinois has been steadily increasing to allow these activities that implement st amendment concerns and especially because these protest marches are occurring outside whether  easily he's also made the promise of policy choice that users sections on this message right now because many alumni residents and businesses have suffered financial damage so what he's trying to do is if to balance i think the of illinois question that this type of deference was dealing e e o thirty two with entered we're not trying to suggest that as long as code that nineteen exists in the world that there will continue to be this need for deference to every government action but frankly when evidence of this thing i don't think that's the case is it your honor it is correct that there is a lot that we don't know about this virus and there is a lot of dispute about it but what is undisputed is that it travels primarily through respiratory transmission so once someone speaks or seeing is that these droplets can be transmitted and what i meant about this type of gathering is that there are numerous accounts throughout the world of religious gatherings leading talc breaks and we have to keep in mind the context of when this order was entered at the end of april this was in a situation where as ever i had a lot of time to compile years of research and figure out what was going on we had to act in accordance with the knowledge that we had at the time and that knowledge shows that in person gatherings that center around verbal interaction are dangerous and that's why schools have been closed no one doubts that going to school is very important but they have been posts for the past few months and i'm always right now been opened for summer school on a short term basis and other activities such as going to movie theater or concert hall with the chief justice alan comparable are still prohibit so looking at the worship i would like to point out that no matter what happens in the future of the contacts is going to be important because we have to look at not only what restriction of place on churches but also on other secular gatherings and how they operate together but we do understand if because even though the the energy is different their chief justice roberts opinion emphasized the need for publicly a lot to officials in this context and the governor has just taken steps to protect the people of  illinois and they will continue to rely on the publicly elected official to protect them from a virus that has a right to take my life and more than six thousand and a vigil so i know that i'm almost out of time and i'm left the court has any further question a grand for one way i always go in and out or various measures that they have taken while the shortages can and have taken the same exact measures and so there is no reason why we would not even give the churches a chance worshipping with the same people in the same auditorium this provision kicks in that is conscionable i would also say that the with respect to the protests and whatnot that are happening you know everybody else other than church is continuous to remain subject to the ten per cent limit that was a beforehand except that now the governor has decided to make exceptions for other people that shows the