thank you your honor may please the court i would like to reserve two minutes for a bottle and i will be mindful of my time at the outset i'd like to say that my co counsel mr leader is here beside me and that our primary over if that's necessary so to my argument we're not here to defend animal fighting or to defend animal harm we're fundamentally here to defend the categorical approach is that the generic definition of moral turpitude in this case which is sort of a subject near definition that needs to be compared is impermissible interpretation that fails at chevron's step two and that is because these quotes socially degrading standard is too far divorced from the categorical approach it doesn't do a elements matching but instead it looks at the worst possible harm of the activity generally ok but normally there are people held to intend like the natural or probable or universal consequences of their actions well i think that that may be so but that in this statute if you look at the plain language and you look at the legislative history i think that could be part one of the many pieces of the statute that there is no improbable harm but there is what this is also it's not designed to regulate commerce and public health or disease that's why it's a federal statute to transfer the chickens between it's not a problem to have well i think what i'm saying is well i guess what i would say to that is that there is also an issue which was raised before in this case that it lacks a direct connection to human victims when we say the moral turpitude generic definition is societal degradation societal damage that mean we're still say there has to be human victims in a sense what is the society if not these human victims that it they said it's a societal damage and i think that the attenuation between this is kind of the good sort of like say well when people watch finally video games or violent movies what is that how does that degrade them verses the comparison but that's because it was so similar to the crimes of child abuse and spousal abuse there was essentially a protected class to victims that they sought to protect so you have a very close in time victim whether it's not in that one maybe slightly outside the elements yes but i think this is different where you say where is this the social damage attenuated from the defendant's actual action generally speaking so called chicken fighting or cock fighting is closely associated with illegal gaming gambling play a role here board doesn't show as many cases where ok here's you know federal case they're analyzing it on appeal and there was no possible way that it could not contain moral turpitude they are looking essentially at the legislative history statute sout and they're basically just saying on its face an argument is that on its face it does not consider the time they're trying to push it not intentional infliction as if that's an intentional direction of harm as if that's in every hunty a crime like or even just a practice of legal hunts you where you can use a fox hunt hound to hunt for a fox is just just to say not to say that that's exactly comparable that you know i i don't i don't disagree that it has fallen out of favor with the american public i think again we just trying to say that to say that it's that it level that it's every time vile disqualifie yes good morning your owners zappa tito leo on behalf of the united states attorney general and may please this honorable court petitioners conviction for knowingly  st question to unpack here is what are the parameters of crimes involving moral torture and we've heard petitioner argue in his grief into the court this morning suggesting that will crime involving moral the purposes of discussing the possibility or the parameters of crimes involving moral holding to whether or not in every single instance it must involve a human victim and that was in accordance with their new m a question i was curious about the steps you would apply with the statute apply to any finding venture between any two animals so that if if for example some clever person figured out a way to train train rats to fight each other but that be a violation of this another i think what's most important to you no lies here and i think it usually goes on and on about about intent and what is the intent for purposes of this particular statute and i don't think british were ever ever since i feel as though petitioner can peer socially compromising he is perfectly acceptable and i feel as though that's a shift and that's attempt i think that this way this court from finding really here is that what we're dealing with regard to crimes involving moral torpor that involved dogfighting but i wouldn't fight this court's attention to the manson sixty six dollars the animal welfare act and the subsequent legislative history unfold in that and how each year after year the year it's been progressive books with regard to fighting ventures this increasing national consensus against this activity i think is echoed by senator susan collins who by quoting with regard to the legislative society have you ill fighting in condemnation so i think that's a number red herring to sort of equate video game watching we've actually knowingly exhibiting or sponsoring a rooster suffering inflicted on scythian beings for hunting purposes to hunting is really another red herring in this particular case i think we are in a situation where yes morally compromised behavior for individuals to cheat on i mean to the death of seventeen beings and as a result we think that with regard to issue number one issue number two there are these this i would just briefly respond you know i will say with regard to hunt she say that the comparison is not out you know a lot of for example a lot of little hunters to say that hunting is generally utilitarian so to say that that's done in today's modern times for the purpose of food or something like that i'm not arguing whether it's right or wrong or what it is but i'm saying the comparison is similar in how way  again i think our major argument is not that this behavior should be defended or that it's quote more but that is that the categorical broach is very important and skinner wrote it in these kind of cases where it's socially degrading standard allows a sort of subjective idea about the whole activity itself and not just what the person did i mean if we say does a drug person who possesses marijuana a small amount of marijuana or small amount of drug and murder in a sense they are right because they're contributing their fuel he didn't want to hold that individual person responsible for all the ills to society is something that i think the kind of local approach should allow like  will not affect the ability for it to decriminalize and for people to be punished you know at the at the end of the day we argue that it's not true that right on its face is overbroad and the case shelby submitted but before we break to the next matter i want to just comment that the arguments on both sides f