degree well i think you know i don't know that diversion of resources alone would ever be sufficient that there have to be some kind and caring and i think the pacific legal foundation case is a good example of down where the rules make it more alleged that they're trying to do is educate members about about the various rules and immigration policies the organization lacks standing the individuals them applying case would still correct so that if we agree with you on the organizational plan being if you do that they lack of here what do we do well then you know and that's it i think you know and i'm wondering whether the complaint where it alleges the status of the individuals whether the allegations of the complaint are sufficient to justify standing  along the lines of judge wilkinson that asked in other words if we agreed with you on chasse of don't we still have to confront the notion that the individual plaintiffs are plaintiffs and they have all consider that waived but if you did want to address it and look at the allegations we don't think those allegations are sufficient to show that they face any imminent threat of harm i mean these are individuals who there's no suggestion that they are using public benefits or would use public benefits you know not even i don't think there's an allegation that they're planning to move just their status which with which we you know they're not imminently subject to the rules and nor is there any reason to think that they wouldn't that they would meet that they would be those individuals and it is sufficient to show that they face in imminent threat of injury from the rule well i think the case for individual standing is a bit stronger and look at looking over this complaint and the could you determine with this new rule because this is a question of admissibility are all the event the portability so we're looking we're making a future for chaos with this rule over thirty six months span any point in their lives from it isn't are you guilty of a wow gas or is this a shot in the itself i think one of the main thrust in the purposes of the rule is to set forth a framework that identifies him enough never been done before that identified the factors that into decatur should consider anything within the rule and the lengthy explanation this is a justification for each of the factors that are that are listed as as you know as got a bearing on the question of whether someone is likely to use public benefits with serious medical conditions without a history of employment you know with pat's usage of benefits for example if time comes up and so forth so you know the idea behind the rule of pardon in there before that's true your honor that that they are not but they are i do want to emphasize that there are only three of these i'm not non cash benefits which are the new benefits there are only three benefits that are being considered here in the universe of possible public benefits and they are and they go to their means tested benefits that go to basic necessities of to health care and housing medicaid with exceptions snap program in housing public housing benefits  standard what what makes what makes this what makes this a better rule than the primarily the found a standard that  had prevailed for a number of years before that was why is this why is this  benefits for income but what the agency found i think scientists would agree that you know that that implies a very limited number of individuals and so there were not very many people deemed likely to become a public charge and what the agency determined is that  also corrected to our protection of the public charge provision in other words i have wondering whether you see your rule as a definitive interpretation of public charge position that like any line drawing you can draw lines at anywhere and the discretion is whether the line is drawn in an area where it's reasonable to conclude that consumption of benefits in other words one hundred percent relapse and so the idea is to fix some place in between that balances the two extremes i suppose that's the conclusion one would draw yes exactly  say that someone was primarily or was this that someone was likely to become a public charge based on a single month or two months of being just plucked out of thin air those eventually agencies run up against an arbitrary and capricious standard or an all for a virus problem and i gather you would say that it would arguing you know i guess our historical view is that the term is always been subject to interpretation and open to interpretation and that you know the agency made a tent here to set a know i can take a look at this pacific heights but that is discussed in length in the rule itself the final rules about you know if they did you looked at usage patterns how how many people use benefits for a year and use them for a year are they likely to stay on them for a long period and you know how many use it for just a temporary point in time and that sort of thing and so maybe to derive the twelve months by kind of concluding that once once you see what's yours john that you've used it for twelve months you tend to stay on it for you get to the particular point in the rule whether it discusses that but there is there is a section of the rule the preamble to the rule that identifies how they went about determining the twelve month their lives to receive only a small amount of suffering mental public assistance for even a short period of time the district court properly held that this rule is contrary to law the meaning of the term public charge the statutes provision of the temporary assistance arriving immigrant and the need for public assistance at that time confirmed that only those primarily dependent on the government were public charges in the early th century  not written into the term public charge primarily dependent standard it would have been open and permissible for congress to do whatever he wanted if it wanted to defining this term and why don't they result in a very serious decisions by the legislative branch stretching well over a century were actually working on the provision so congress never would have thought that it was necessary to define in vastly the primarily the tendon and or because in practice that's the standard primarily defended standard ridged which you primarily depend on standard which you are talking about being human and are in effect for all of that that committee report had explicit lay before congress or least the senate whether it should go further in trying to define public charge and the executive so why are the salaries of congress over all these years why did that reflect exactly what the senate report missed indicated which was th decision that was adopted by attorney general robert kennedy and the marketing of lopez says that the standard governing public charge is that ordinarily somebody talk about the potential for incarceration of an individual so those are individual circumstances any wish to be relevant to the saddle meaning a public trial was primarily dependent on the government i don't necessarily disagree with that in the sense of what you're suggesting perfectly permissible way to defy a public charge but might this not be a case in which persons who might be using public resources as the word they use and that would burden public benefit systems and this seems to me that that is not an arrow that the underlying policy for the public charge statute and other words the idea is that immigrants not be attracted to this country for public benefit and that they do not use or burden the public by public resources is the word they use and i while obviously that is the statute itself it seems to me when congress says that's a compelling government interest as they say in that  know one as related to the public part of provision but is it fair to look at the statute as a whole and interpreted the public charge provision particularly th me somewhat somewhat flexible simply because the needs of the country change yes your honor and just because the definition of  always has been primarily dependent on the government that doesn't mean that thank you so much mr bakker thank you mr crosbie us sometime i just and you're representing the united states house of representatives in an amicus capacity and we welcome you before the court and would like to hear what you have to say thank you your honor and thank you very much for committing the house to participate as an excess in support of our police today without five repeating the arguments and helpful discussions that you've had with my my colleagues i'd just like them to size four points first the witnesses rule is impossible to reconcile with statutory provisions the congress didn't and six to further a goal of promoting self sufficiency among immigrants to america it is implausible that the same congress that made non citizens eligible for public benefits after a certain number of years also intended to permit an agency to redefine the term public charge to exclude immigrants who might accept those benefits second ever since congress and after the law excluding those likely to become public charges an primarily to of the pen the standard is the only permissible standard your honor ever since the time entered the immigration laws it has meant primarily dependent and we know that from contemporaneous dictionary definitions from overly judicial constructions from consistent agency interpretations all the way up through to and including the  immigration policy didn't remain static there were ebbs and flows to it and yet it in the midst of all those ebbs and flows congress resisted the pressure of the temptation or whatever a member of al five legislative branch of government might be concerned about it is well if if if we go with your interpretation i worry that immigration policy is going to be primarily indeed you two are to a greater extent in the judicial branch of government is something and which political branches should take a primary role and the political branches take a primary role in two respects oh i'm one in  changing oriented flexible definition in the administrative process of public charge and true and the continuing ability of the congress of the united states to war man the statute and soul i want to thank the supreme court has many many times said that the driving force immigration policy should be  solution is for the house to enact a provision that counters what the courts have done or what they may do or what the position is it's curious to me that the house of representatives would come to an article three court and ask the court to construe a statute in the way the house intended when the house can simply say what it intended and i find the whole thing a little out of out of balance as to are functions  house of representatives is the law making function and apparently it's the house's position that public charge has a particular meaning and it can say so but it seems to may be judicia is left with construing what has been done in accordance with the principles of the a p a and whatever legal propositions are handled but to leave it undefined and then to come say this is what we meant to a tradition every house has many times gone and corrected courts supreme court has ruled in a particular way in construing the statute and you find congress going back overruling that and making clear what the congress intented i'm sort of wondering why that isn't if you're authorized to be here on behalf of the house why wouldn't you also be how to rise to just take your battle agency all of a sudden say well we can screw this the reason our borders are flooded is because people want the benefits of welfare or they want the benefits of this or they want to benefits of that can't those changing circumstances authorised the executive to apply the public charge which is a broad term and covers back to the current circumstances it seems to me to say that the house deliberately left a public charge under fire and because that's the way earlier courts had to find it is hardly the way the legislature should act if you see a change in condition you can change change the law you can define public charge i don't know where we get the authority to say because the house didn't amend it it therefore has to stay the same your honor as i pointed to the two thousand and nine decision from the supreme court in the cormo versus clearing house  undefined and what the court held there under the familiar chevron inquiry was that the presence i'm quoting now the presence of some uncertainty in the meaning of that term does not expand chevron the us to cover virtually any lengthy discussion and i have a cite here in the federal register of the for the final rule that eighty four dollars federal register age forty one thousand three hundred and fifty nine to page forty one thousand three hundred and sixty three dollars and there the agency discusses the various studies including the census bureau thank mannix of economic well being study and a number of others and it explains how we came up with the twelve month standard based on those studies and other analysis and then  couple of points that are going to reduce rates we covered a lot to scrounge a reading but you know as as your honour's have mentioned congress has at no point in the history of the legislation ever indicated given any indication that it thought that so and of course as a brief discusses at length there were buried definitions given over time in recent presumably congress left it up to the discretion of the executive branch was for the executive branch to to adapt to the circumstances of the changing immigration and changing welfare policies and so forth and in this provision reflects an exercise a reasonable exercise of that discretion you know you know i would just one very minor point you know opposing counsel mentioned that you know people who are helping the prime of life would not be considered public charges previously well that's also true under the rule in fact the rule in the case this as an example of someone who would be a public charge someone who was healthy and in college and so forth so there's no reason to conclude that that the average this is going to result in an effort to help the person because of being in the public charge that is that is all i had to say if you aren't of any further questions i'm happy to address anything else that came up during the argument all right well that concludes our argument i'm afraid you do when all three of you give on such a fine argument and obviously have appreciation for the quality of your advocacy and what is a very important case and i think by cooperative you so very much and and please stay sa