writings thank you honors me and please the court my name is lord help i mean i'm here today representing when daniel in her causes of action for disability discrimination and retaliation under the americans with disabilities test is it's to determine if an into to is actually a state and if the lawsuit is itself a lawsuit against the entity is a lawsuit against the state itself so it provides guidelines to balance t equities and determine the true proper classification of the entity it's our position that but the trial court just simply looking at that st factor in not doing any further an that that piece of this factor does favor and the unity however if you look at that the next piece is what to the case is that there is a list of cases in the briefing where they've all gone through and arm of the state so the cases listed all all of those cases that were concluded without having applied this extent and or without the plaintiffs even challenging the directional issue so our position is that those particular cases are not dispositive on this issue because they didn't apply t that's the most important factor the courts upheld that that's because the purpose of the th amendment is to protect the state treasurer so what the courts have done in other cases is they look to is the state going to be liable to pay this basically constructs and as operates its clinical facilities with no funding from the state it also receives no funding from the state or the u t system for patients services or facilities it receives considerable funds from outside sources such as private insurance come i'd also reasons research funds from foundations and individuals so there is it doesn't need minimal funding and i think one of my my points that i saw in their documentation is that it receives no funding for these operating of their clinical facilities it does require an end user state funding for education and research but even that state funding they say in their hands and there are legislative appropriations requests that for the last two decades that funding itself has been extremely limited and they don't have access to on the lake in prisons anymore so the only way that they can get state funding is through no on formula requests they also had to submit a plan for decreasing their own formula funding by ten percent so there's clearly some money they get from the stay for research and education but that money is extremely limited and in contrast to to them using you know state funded to run their think that in the beginning verses university of texas health science center in houston what the court looked at was there was an amount of funding but they ultimately found that the state received significant which i think is a distinction in funding i don't know that there's a bright line tipping point so i think it's just part of the balancing and in this case you look at you to southwestern and the way they are able to be so self sufficient i think it balances toward this state not being obligated for having to pay a judgment in this case there's also in some of the documentation that you choose southwestern and chancel sent over last week there's some documents in the legislative appropriations act that the way i read it looks like it it's my position that there is no need for any money to be paid by the state in a situation like this it's already been it's not a system that's accountable for how to handle it and this isn't does money isn't come from the state and that's really what you know the focus of the th amendment is is the state going to be responsible and it looks like they've got this set up so that they actually are not respond and i'd also argue that this indicates that it's whether the what the unity and then it is trying to protect is the state having to pay the judge so if the state is not going to be having to pay this judgment and that the southwestern construction operates its facilities using those state funds and things would lend evidence that they are they have got significant autonomy their website also demonstrates say that they are governed by the system there's no mention of the board of regents or the huge system on on this leadership pay so i would argue that that would be a factor that we balance in favor of them having significant local autonomy is opposing controlled by the state in their day to day operations and the th factors concerns with local and state what issues this is whether the entity acts for the benefit of the state as a whole or for the special advantage of the locals on this point i'd say we do agree as the court said in the  that education and research are state wide concerns however again i would point to the fact that u t southwestern is confined locally in dallas i know that the court didn't go for that argument in to them be sued in their own name i think these cases show that they are sued in their name and not requiring the state to be substituted in and the last factors the ability to hold a news property again they construct an operate t or are simply a guideline and when the answer and this is quite the answer to this question that case should be clear southwestern is the flagship medical school for the university of texas system an entity that is itself at the heart of texas  of public education it is not a local government in any sense confirming this this court can look to prior cases in cases such as us oil recovery king v u t health science center and houston  lewis of need midwestern state wallace the texas tech you noted carolina bank the stephen f austin scored as said over and over again the public universities and graduate schools in texas are arms of the state just last year and system this court said the university of texas at there but if it goes further it will find that the six factors merely confirm what should be clear itself western is an arm of the state beginning with factor one daniel concedes the texas views intreat southwestern as a part of its state government daniel tries to downplay this factor however this factor should receive significant weight to see why compared to factor to this court has elevated the source of funding above all other factors on the premise that protecting the public fisc is an important function of sovereign immunity the supreme court said of fair or in federal maritime commission v south carolina state ports authority that while states opportunity serves the important function of shielding state treasuries the doctrine central purpose is to accord the states the respect owed them as joint sovereigns for this respect to have any meaning it must include respect for how that joint sovereign characterizes itself and it component parts so at the very least a factor one should be up there with factor two because both serve important functions of sovereign immunity of south western funds or state funds which i will explain in a minute but the state appropriations what this court found substantial in in king was one hundred and seventy million dollars in state appropriations in the most recent general  appropriations act southwestern received one hundred and eighty three million dollars substantial funding and king is even more substantial in this case daniel argues however that that southwestern has funds outside of the state treasury with which it can they can pay judgment but just because those funds are outside of the state treasury this court has said over and over again does not mean they're not state funds all the same laws that apply to stephen f austin in united carolina bank that apply to mid western state lewis that apply to king apply to southwestern these funds are subject to budget planning subject to state audit subject to to control by the board of regents and the legislature which means that a judgment against southwestern paid with these funds will interfere with the fiscal autonomy output of the state my my colleague also from misreads the appropriation which actually contemplates that state appropriations will be used to made judgments in the st interim instance that the general appropriations act says that appropriations may be used so long as the judgment is less than two hundred and fifty thousand dollars or not more than one percent of the budget it then goes to the comptroller section which says that if you breach that permit then you go to the comptroller's fund so long art so long as there are not local or institutional funds to pay it so in the  st instance the judgment is actually contemplated to come out of the state appropriations and in in any event the appropriation acts all also tells us that the a g must approve any judgment paid by any which is which is in another indication that these funds are state phones one rd argument that daniel makes in in her brief and is and is implicit in many of the arguments that that council made today is that you can treat the hospital somehow different from the rest of the entity but this court in us boil recovery i've rejected that proposition it's said that sovereign immunity applies to entities not claims you can't simply separate even if they are not this court can simply look at at the factors the the this court can affirm for any grounds present in the in the record and you can look at the factors and and the case law we  question i mean when you when you look at clark you had the terence tao any probation department when you st look at that there's a big question about whether or not that's a state or local and and so you go through the six factors there you know when when when it's a difficult question but when it's clear and when there's plenty of case louth they're examining similar institutions that when which identical laws apply and you can simply cite those cases but again even at the court notwithstanding the federal rules of civil procedure was required to go through and make and make conclusions of law this court can still affirm because because each southwestern it exercises plenary control over them the the the statute there contain a limit on on the control that the board of regents exercises over southwestern and the border regions it itself the members are are appointed by the governor on the advice and consent of the senate daniel argues that that that because there are very good people that run southwestern that it has local autonomy but one has nothing to do with the other indeed one must assume that the probation department clark was run by competent people one must assume that the duty health science center at houston was also run by very very competent people and a approval and no oversight and if the government had limited and that the governor had limited a point of order none of those apply here turning to factor for state wide issues again  medical school education especially medical are teaching they are your honor and and as i said previously even if you are going to limit them to a hospital that is somehow only local that's correct you are in and they also have several specialty centers and work from people from all over the state come come to seek care at self question it is it is concerned with matters statewide a but i mean of course it has a  physical location and my counsel my co counsel says that will use to have dallas in the name u t austin law as austin in the name i don't think that anybody would argue that it is a local government simply because it has austin in the name it simply signifies where the physical location is a factor six in king this court pointed out that the board of regents maintains title and control over the property the same ted the general land office the texas department of criminal justice these are all clearly arms of the state that conceal and be sued in their own name and with those factors balancing all of them you have five of  right and i do think that when you do when you look at the six factors as a whole that you choose southwestern is distinct from the other ins and i think marilee the funding issue and how they use their that the fact that they're able to run those facilities with no state funding i would argue does lend itself to its being more like a city or a local municipality in the hudson corps in the hudson case the court said that what you're really looking at is is does the entity state actually stand in the shoes of the state and if the entity is not seen as an alter ego of the state and there's no unity and so that's where i would argue they are more city like and how they're able to run their and again on the the funding for the settlements in the judgment and the appropriations act actually states that although again the money comes from the comptroller and it is required to be