marketplace that's what it's designed to do is designed to avoid parochial interest and that's exactly what this legislation does the favored new york retail rescue entities as we call them you can call them shelter and rescue facilities think the court may have a front and obviously i'm here to answer your questions because are these the same dogs and i think that's right almost the right question the question according to the supreme court is not whether the same dogs but do they compete in the same  at pike for example one of the key case in this area the california melons were of superior quality and they were competing with the arizona melons arctic mate was a case with alaska salmon where they looked in the compare t court asked is not whether the source was the same but whether they were competing in the same marketplace and on this record it is absolutely competing conceded by my adversary that they are competing in the same markets place animal care and control is run by recent weinstock who's the c e o of animal care and control that's as a special appendix three forty four per each one of these people she says in her own language  adoptive egypt of my adversary says that the classes and class b is not playing that one second are better competing with the real rescues and shelters are her competition the very word that she uses competition that's exactly what judge who is the new yorker welfare association and i i know you know the congress both better than i ever will i apologize for that i'll do the best i can but who are members we start with class a is there people raising puppies in different places then you have ex federal structure is that class a's in exams if you don't mind i'll treat those together because they're kind of the same concept raising puppies more or less they they cannot avail themselves of the new york market without the class b the very purpose of the class b s is to identify the reasonable responsible breeders to bring them safely because they have special vehicles were doing so and bringing them to the market where they're going to want it the record in this case is that several people tried as class a's your honor to address your question directly and actually wanted to say let's cut out the middleman will try and avoid the class b they couldn't do it so on this record on the evidence before you the class a's cannot avail themselves of it and yet have but the class a is to press your question in theory only if you're an oklahoman you're selling a dog for fifteen hundred dollars it's going to cost you hundred bucks to fly over here to new york city you got to space before the bucks at night you can no is the federal structure the u s d a has set up a structure class a's and exams are people who are allowed to raise dogs they are licensed they are very inspected and they're subject to the state jurisdiction in which they are located on this record critically there are no class bees in new york now technically you'll hear in a minute but there is for class b as well three of them are no longer operational and the last one is unclear whether they are everson and never sold a dog in new york so the evidence here is that wouldn't that be the consequence of the of the rule that you're objecting to your quest bees are not allowed to perform functions in new york this is not a hospitable climate for class  but but that's exactly what we're challenging because the problem is that the federal structure says there's a reason for this class a's cannot get into your question judge cannot avail themselves of the market without class b so the only way class a's and class b s can function is together they work together when you get to class b s being in new york city the class b s want to be able to compete with the masses they're importing the corn into the north sea in a league over one million dogs right over the last thirty years they're spending millions of dollars to import dogs into new york city those dogs are like the apples from washington state north carolina the melons from california  evidence this is a shoot i'm sorry come to me one second but one of their own agents identified with the caps was the largest single market in the united states so it ok on federal preemption the federal statute in this statute says if your honor points out no class b that's exactly what the federal structure provides is class b s in class a's are both defined and they have the right to function operate the most they'll be able to argue is the quote unquote savings cause this is that the regulations are twenty one forty three it's special appendix one three one the problem is that does not apply because this is not a police health and safety issue the middle case maine vs taylor maine was prevent disease ridden minnows from coming into maine attacking the maine lobsters in this case the record is that they're bringing in thousands and thousands they're spending millions to bring in rescues and shelters for the favored newark entities they are not allowing us to compete in the marketplace and bring in dogs which is exactly there there be shipping in dogs that's what class bees do they're selling dogs for a profit and they're profiting every step they're profiting with spaying and neutering and mary services all the things that pester is doing they're doing and they're profiting from every bit of it this is not a health and safety issue because in maine they want to protect the in state dogs for the in state minnows in this case they're bringing in all kinds of dogs and the evidence  hoenig and others is that the worst dogs meaning no mean bad dogs the dogs are the most disease ridden are the ones they're bringing in so it's not the case and by the way our dogs there's no evidence on the record and in fact capps also indicated that in state preemption when a veterinarian takes a license in new york state they have to swear an oath and that oath says i will get informed consent and know they don't ask the dog they have to ask the dog's owner they have to give you their best independent professional judgment as to what they're going to do and the science of today is that there is a significant and real question whether early spending a new ring is good were actually fail for the dog expert after expert has testified or search for certified and verified this record result now the burden of the objective is a burden to spec to pet stores versus animal shelters and that is entirely intra state new york city pet stores are subject to birds because they are targeted by source regulator whose regulation that requires a business to change its method of operation was exactly what's going on here  indeed it makes no sense to require the same sourcing provision in animal shelters because they are slaves they simply are not the same after years and that stores in lost soldiers function to take in animals from all ok sions who are sick or abandoned or and there's nothing stopping a class a breeder from for example raising the initial price that they if they charged for selling a patch to take into account the new distribution regulation burden that they are fired by the statute to raise that price and to result the there is that there's no impeding of the of the commerce flowing interest in interstate because at the same amount of dogs and cats are flowing interstate is simply a method of operation the business that's regulated as changed  is going to impact or effect in the way the city council desires and they made those very same arguments during the legislative process that brought in and that brought these these laws into effect and their disagreement with the empirical judgment of the city council made which are based on an extensive record  service to do that may be but they're not prevented entirely from functioning they they simply cannot engage in a particular transaction with a particular counterparty here the pet shops however they can still continue to sell directly  regulations that are stricter too and in addition to those regulations that are adopted by the secretary of agriculture here with the court's indulge in just to briefly touch on the state preemption claim here i think it's quite clearly  bill s t a one thirty one is the federal regulation that they're citing to for the savings clause it is limited it is limited because when you look at s b a one thirty two it says the only place where the federal just a covenant are allowed to enroll is the place you would naturally think so and safety and they can promise good standards to govern humane handling care treatment transportation not one word there not one step section here not no part of it says you cannot so that the our argument really is pretty simple new york is favoring local entities who are profiting in the neighborhood of millions three hundred plus million dollars they are charging it every aspect of it of neutering spaying veterinary sale everything and they are excluding a competing entity this is precisely what the commerce clause is not allowed to do there is no public health and safety concern because our dogs are not ending up  and the factual record here if we're looking at waiting is whether the this is every case we look at the factual record the fact is classes here on this record say we cannot avail ourselves of the market and in the last issue will end up with is the state commerce clause is really pretty simple when a better way takes that oath they take the oath that they're going to get the best service they can to that dog and their own independent judgment new york law does not allow them to exercise that independent judgment new york city is completely violating new york state law because what the veterinarian if you're the one actually and taking care of that dog you have to say do i think do i just call it a bit an area and think it is proper that i should stay and neuter a six or a five or six month old dog they say well the only a also fails so you're at that marion who has to do the spaying or neutering and a horrible choice the choice is do this thing in neutering which when i know will lead to early dog deaths and has or alternatively i don't do in which case the dog becomes unadoptable i'm damned if i do either way so that it is not just me saying so there were seven veterinarians who walked in all who had the position they don't have to be right but the fact is what new york state law says you have to trust that that merits independent professional judgment they can't be forced to do something because someone at newark takes a minority view that's being a neutering at an early age is a good idea unless there's any further questions your honor thank you very much