hardship waiver would belong to her it would belong to her employer and if one hundred employer got that waiver it would buy a new torture to work for that one employer indefinitely it's reasonable for her to be in federal court today because she  off today than she was before the college requirement before actually in active it's regulations misordered could just do her job now she can take a gamble on her employer obtaining a hardship waiver and lose her ability to change  sanchez had to get an associate's degree to comply with aussies regulations or lose her business after we filed this lawsuit aussie changed its regulations to make experience waivers available to home providers likeness on chess so now she faces the choice of going to college or filing a form every three years to renew her experience waiver but tacking on an experience waiver option doesn't change your legal claims of course it eliminates one of her equal protection arguments that allowing teachers who work in daycare centers to get experience waivers while not allowing home providers to do so was irrational that argument is moot but it doesn't eliminate the non delegation claim the substantive due process claim or the other aspects of the equal protection claim now of course filing a complicated form to comply with the regulations that were unlawfully adopted is a much smaller injury than having to go to college but you can't move a case by making an injury extent that the court wishes to address it in the st instance the district's cross appeal also fails first plane to state a valid non delegation claim off the active with complete untrammeled legislative authority here no legislature a court was empowered to review what aussie did and if the non delegation doctrine means anything it means that intelligible principles must be enforceable if an agency doesn't have to adhere to an intelligible principle that's an unconstitutional delegation the entire point of an intelligible principle is so that the courts can evaluate whether an agency has followed it just as the supreme court stated  states otherwise an intelligible principle is a mere suggestion exhortation or pleas for an agency to follow it unlike federal agencies and other d c agencies where the organic statutes allow for review of law making off you does not the district is muddying the waters by arguing that there is a review of rule makings in d c courts but it's telling that the best support they can come up with is a case require more early childhood classes for people who don't have college degrees than for people who do that means that if miss orchard did not already have a degree she would be required to take fewer early child credits to comply with these regulations is irrational and finally point to spring a valid substantive due process claim the college requirement is not rationally related to improving early childhood education a college degree is not going to make my clients better at caring for children ages euro just three there's no predicting what anyone would actually learn by getting an early childhood degree because there's no single coherent curriculum that means it's an empty credential and it is irrational for the district to require anyone to obtain it especially when it places an insurmountable burden on our plaintiffs and hundreds of other daycare providers this court should reverse the district court and re court a court a roadmap in the course of preparing for this argument i realize that i think there is a potential path through this case the can make the courts task a simple one this is a rare case where i think the court can bypass the justiciable the questions prudential rightness and sort of i think that what about the census so no i think i think there because one of the issues there is whether her claims are moot and i think that that  so as long as the court can can potentially reached the mass issues and agrees with us at those claims fail on the merits that that would resolve the entire case and so if the court were to a ssume for sake of argument the rightness of mis orchard's claims again that's that's that's a way that i think the court can just go straight to the merits now i would like to be clear that we stand by the justice should go the arguments that substantive substantively they have never made any kind of argument that that this to grieve requirement could be constitutional as to one type of work or or or not another and i so i think in deciding  language an occasion intel further down the road because that would allow the development of a factual record about how aussie it sort of criteria and is in its  adequate or whether she sort of philosophically agrees that it's enough for her i do think it would eliminate her her injury so whether or not you hold on this right now he doesn't know whether she'll get a hardship waiver if she went to a new employer and so she has to make a decision to take the credit hours now i don't understand how any of that is going to change it's not going to make the legal analysis and easier do any different well i think it could work and what the district court said about this is that the the generosity that he shows how willing it is to grant waivers generally and it's not just about whether does it why does it impact the legality of the vision if there's a way to lease and survive rational basis or they don't either they survive the delegation attack on delegation attack but they don't i much pain she's going to bear but it's not about whether there's a difference in the law so i agree that the question about the waivers would not impact the non delegation argument and that the district court specifically recognized that but the district courts point was that it could free with hardship waivers that impact how burdensome the regulatory regime is and so it could impact the marriage decision down the road now i have knowledge that you know  already completed the paperwork that shows that she is entitled to this waiver and there's there's nothing about it that's going to change we know that the agency announced that anybody who has an experience waiver does not have to reapply every three remand merely on the jurisdictional issue and allow the district court to address it in the st instance but i would be happy to answer any questions the court has i w honor we we did cite to the late carriers association case and the need case where regulations had not yet taken effect but the plaintiffs were allowed to challenge them but the more important point here is that the regulations have already injured our point and so there's no uncertainty even if they didn't come into effect for many many years in the future and there's no one  subject to the college requirement and no longer have the sun certainty they could just keep doing their job