[00:00:01] Speaker 00:
Case number 19-5284, the American Council of the Blind and Patrick Sheehan, Appellants, Otis Stevens versus Stephen T. Mnuchin, Secretary of the Treasury.

[00:00:13] Speaker 00:
Mr. Levittke for the Appellants, Mr. Winnick for the Appellate.

[00:00:18] Speaker 04:
Mr. Levittke, good morning.

[00:00:20] Speaker 04:
Good morning, Your Honor.

[00:00:21] Speaker 04:
Thank you, and may it please the Court.

[00:00:25] Speaker 04:
I'd like to begin by

[00:00:28] Speaker 04:
noting that there is not a single declaration in the record of this case that states that it is impossible to add a raised tactile feature to all denominations of bills by 2026.

[00:00:42] Speaker 04:
There is not a single declaration from any official, the DEP, the Department of Justice, the Federal Reserve Board, Treasury, or anyone else that makes that statement.

[00:00:54] Speaker 03:
Wait a minute, Counselor, I'm not sure I understand.

[00:00:58] Speaker 03:
reading the briefs, that the government had indicated that they don't know how to do it at this stage.

[00:01:05] Speaker 03:
They simply do not know how to do it.

[00:01:08] Speaker 04:
That's true, Your Honor.

[00:01:09] Speaker 04:
They said that, but that doesn't mean, Your Honor, that it's impossible.

[00:01:13] Speaker 04:
The district court found that it was impossible.

[00:01:19] Speaker 03:
Well, does it matter whether it's impossible or they simply don't know how to do it?

[00:01:24] Speaker 03:
How can we order the government to do something they don't know how to do?

[00:01:29] Speaker 04:
Well, Your Honor, first of all, to back up, this case has a very long history.

[00:01:33] Speaker 04:
It was the government's decision, not ours, to choose the raised tactile feature as their preferred method of accessibility.

[00:01:41] Speaker 04:
There are other more commonly used methods, such as changing the size of currency, et cetera.

[00:01:47] Speaker 04:
They could have done that, but they just said, no, we don't want to do that because it's too expensive.

[00:01:52] Speaker 04:
And now 10 years, 10 years after, they decided that they were going to use the raised tactile feature

[00:02:00] Speaker 04:
All of a sudden, they come up and say, we don't know how to do it.

[00:02:04] Speaker 04:
But yet, if they don't know how to do it, Your Honor, I would submit to the court, why are they saying in the status report filed with this court just yesterday that they expect to do it by 2026?

[00:02:15] Speaker 04:
Certainly, there is some inconsistency there.

[00:02:19] Speaker 03:
Well, they're hoping they can figure out how to do it.

[00:02:21] Speaker 03:
Well, Your Honor, they didn't say they were hoping to.

[00:02:23] Speaker 03:
They said they expect to.

[00:02:25] Speaker 03:
Well, but the problem is,

[00:02:29] Speaker 03:
They don't know how to do it now.

[00:02:32] Speaker 03:
And apparently other countries around the world are struggling with that.

[00:02:37] Speaker 03:
that effort unsuccessfully?

[00:02:41] Speaker 04:
Well, Your Honor, there's a mixed bag of opinion on that.

[00:02:45] Speaker 04:
Frankly, there are many people, including Cummins Allison, who said that they have, they manufacture the ATM machines in Canada that are used in Canada, it's in the record, and they say it was successful.

[00:02:58] Speaker 04:
They're able to use this equipment on ATM machines, on existing banknote machinery without a problem,

[00:03:05] Speaker 04:
and without any undue expense.

[00:03:08] Speaker 04:
They're able to use the raised tactile feature.

[00:03:11] Speaker 04:
I don't see if they're able to use it in Canada, why they can't use it here.

[00:03:15] Speaker 04:
But more importantly than that, Your Honor, the government's position is that they expect to do it.

[00:03:23] Speaker 04:
This is their statement.

[00:03:24] Speaker 04:
They expect to do it in 2026.

[00:03:26] Speaker 04:
And frankly, if they say they can't do it, then they're the ones who should be moving for a modification of the injunctive order, not me.

[00:03:39] Speaker 04:
The fact is, your honor, it's one thing to say you can't do it right now.

[00:03:43] Speaker 04:
It's not the same thing to say you can't do it in 2026.

[00:03:47] Speaker 04:
Those are two different things entirely.

[00:03:51] Speaker 02:
Dear Levicki, let me follow up on what you just said, because it's not clear to me that you're wrong when you say maybe the government should be filing a motion to modify the injunction.

[00:04:07] Speaker 02:
This is, as you pointed out, a case with a long history.

[00:04:11] Speaker 02:
And one of the original court holdings, findings, was that the blind lack meaningful access to paper currency.

[00:04:26] Speaker 02:
And our court, the DC Circuit, has agreed with that part.

[00:04:32] Speaker 02:
The DC Circuit has also said that an accommodation is required if the accommodation does not impose an undue burden.

[00:04:41] Speaker 02:
That's what the Rehabilitation Act requires, an accommodation if it does not impose an undue burden.

[00:04:48] Speaker 02:
Our court has further said that increasing the size of the numbers on the bills and making the colors jump out more is not an undue burden.

[00:04:59] Speaker 02:
So far, so good.

[00:05:02] Speaker 02:
But we've also said that that alone does not provide meaningful access to the currency.

[00:05:07] Speaker 02:
And I think that the government, you, the district court, and the two panel decisions from the DC Circuit are all in agreement on those four things.

[00:05:19] Speaker 02:
Now here's where I think it gets a little trickier.

[00:05:23] Speaker 02:
The circuit court has never held, I don't think, please correct me if I'm wrong, this court has never held that there is an accommodation that does not impose an undue burden,

[00:05:37] Speaker 02:
and that does provide meaningful access.

[00:05:41] Speaker 02:
And assuming that this court has not held that there is an accommodation that does not impose an undue burden and that does provide meaningful access, I'm not convinced that there is such an accommodation.

[00:05:55] Speaker 02:
And if there isn't, then the injunction ought to get modified to say that the government does not have an obligation to

[00:06:05] Speaker 02:
provide meaningful access to paper currency because there is no accommodation that can accomplish that without an undue burden.

[00:06:16] Speaker 04:
Well, Your Honor, in theory, what you say is true.

[00:06:19] Speaker 04:
The problem is it just doesn't comport with the facts of this particular case.

[00:06:24] Speaker 04:
The government hasn't even approached making an undue burden argument.

[00:06:29] Speaker 04:
An undue burden argument would be based on cost estimates.

[00:06:32] Speaker 04:
It would be based on financial issues.

[00:06:34] Speaker 04:
There's no cost estimates in the record.

[00:06:36] Speaker 04:
It's pure guesswork to say it would be undue burdensome at this point.

[00:06:40] Speaker 03:
Well, undue burdensome does not necessarily relate to cost qua cost.

[00:06:49] Speaker 03:
I know you put you've argued that it's only cost factors that prevent the Treasury Department from hiring enough people to solve the problem.

[00:07:02] Speaker 03:
But it's not just a cost factor.

[00:07:05] Speaker 03:
There are limits, technological limits.

[00:07:09] Speaker 03:
There are people, not that many people who can provide this work.

[00:07:13] Speaker 03:
Well, Your Honor, if you are correct.

[00:07:15] Speaker 03:
That's a cost factor by itself.

[00:07:18] Speaker 04:
If you are correct, Your Honor, then why doesn't the government say that in a declaration?

[00:07:23] Speaker 04:
Why don't they just say, we can't do it?

[00:07:27] Speaker 04:
Why don't they just say, this is technically not feasible?

[00:07:30] Speaker 03:
No, they said they don't know how to do it now.

[00:07:38] Speaker 04:
OK, Your Honor, but that's not the same thing.

[00:07:40] Speaker 04:
And I just won't want to beg the question with you.

[00:07:43] Speaker 04:
But I just don't see how saying it's not possible, that can't do it right at this particular second, means that it's impossible, especially in light of their continuing assertions just yesterday before this court, or I'm sorry, on Wednesday before this court, when they say to you that they expect to do add an RTF to the bill by 2020, 2026.

[00:08:09] Speaker 04:
It just doesn't make sense, Your Honor.

[00:08:10] Speaker 04:
The record just doesn't add up.

[00:08:13] Speaker 04:
It just doesn't get there.

[00:08:23] Speaker 04:
Now, you know, the government could have asked in this case, they could have said, look, you know, we wanna keep the record open a little bit longer to see what we can do and what we can't do.

[00:08:34] Speaker 04:
They could have said that, but no, the government said, we want the decision on the existing record right now.

[00:08:41] Speaker 04:
We asked, the consulate asked the court to keep it open longer.

[00:08:46] Speaker 04:
But no, they wanted a decision right now on whether or not it's impossible.

[00:08:49] Speaker 04:
And they got a decision, the district court judge obliged them.

[00:08:53] Speaker 04:
evidentiary records.

[00:08:55] Speaker 04:
There's not a single declaration in the record from one government official that says they can't do it.

[00:09:02] Speaker 02:
Mr. Levicki, I've been thinking about change circumstances.

[00:09:10] Speaker 02:
The suit was brought 18 years ago.

[00:09:11] Speaker 02:
If I remember right, the district court's original

[00:09:19] Speaker 02:
Declaration, declaratory judgment was 2008.

[00:09:23] Speaker 02:
It might be off by a couple of years.

[00:09:27] Speaker 02:
But technology with regard to how we use money, how all people use money, those with a disability and those who don't have a disability has changed.

[00:09:39] Speaker 02:
I tried to think this morning how many times in the last month I've used cash.

[00:09:47] Speaker 03:
I'm hysterical because I went through the same process.

[00:09:57] Speaker 02:
I won't speak for Judge Silverman and how many times he's used cash in the last month, but I've used it once in the past 31 days.

[00:10:06] Speaker 02:
I've used it once.

[00:10:08] Speaker 02:
Now I know that not everyone is in that situation.

[00:10:11] Speaker 02:
Not everyone can get a bank account.

[00:10:14] Speaker 02:
Not everyone can get a debit card.

[00:10:17] Speaker 02:
But the bank accounts and debit cards do not have the same costs and credit requirements that credit cards do.

[00:10:27] Speaker 02:
I think your position, and I'm not saying I disagree with it, I think your position is that the Rehabilitation Act requires that so long as people who are able to see have access to paper currency, there is a federal right

[00:10:45] Speaker 02:
of access to paper currency of people who have vision problems.

[00:10:50] Speaker 02:
And I guess if you could elaborate on that a little bit, I'd be grateful.

[00:10:56] Speaker 02:
Again, I'm not saying I disagree with you, but I am just kind of wondering, you know, 18 years into this, tell me why debit cards don't solve the problem.

[00:11:14] Speaker 05:
Well, let me let me interrupt and say I use cash every single day.

[00:11:19] Speaker 05:
I have a bank account.

[00:11:21] Speaker 05:
I have a credit card.

[00:11:22] Speaker 05:
I have a debit card.

[00:11:25] Speaker 05:
Go ahead.

[00:11:26] Speaker 03:
I'm not going to ask you what you're using cash for.

[00:11:31] Speaker 04:
First of all, Your Honor, I'd like you to know that at this very moment, your tax dollars are being used to build a brand new currency facility in Maryland.

[00:11:43] Speaker 04:
And the reason they're building that brand new currency facility in Maryland is that the government expects that the use of cash is going to increase over the next 10 years.

[00:11:54] Speaker 04:
And that's in the record of this case.

[00:11:58] Speaker 04:
So as my position is, you know, if the government wants to move away from cash, then fine, that's fine.

[00:12:04] Speaker 04:
But they're not doing that.

[00:12:06] Speaker 04:
They intend to increase the supply of cash.

[00:12:08] Speaker 04:
That's why they're building a brand new facility at the cost of tens or hundreds of millions of dollars.

[00:12:13] Speaker 04:
I don't know why.

[00:12:15] Speaker 04:
In Maryland, and an improvement to the one in Fort Worth, because they anticipate an increase in cash usage.

[00:12:23] Speaker 04:
So this is all in terms of speculative.

[00:12:26] Speaker 03:
The real question that seems to me that Judge Walker is raising, but it may not be legitimate for us to open this up because the government hasn't argued it.

[00:12:38] Speaker 03:
But the real question is, for a hearing impaired, isn't there an easy alternative using credit cards or debit cards?

[00:12:51] Speaker 03:
Well, Your Honor- I agree with you.

[00:12:53] Speaker 03:
We can't really rely on that because the government hasn't said it.

[00:12:57] Speaker 02:
Right.

[00:12:58] Speaker 03:
But it's a practical matter, isn't that true?

[00:13:00] Speaker 03:
If I were blind, I would use a credit card or a debit card all the time.

[00:13:06] Speaker 04:
Well, first of all, Your Honor, you get a few practical problems.

[00:13:11] Speaker 04:
These figures are in the record of the case.

[00:13:15] Speaker 04:
But I think, believe it or not, this is surprising, but it's from the Federal Reserve Board.

[00:13:20] Speaker 04:
I believe almost 60% of the people in this country, especially poor people, do not have credit cards or debit cards.

[00:13:34] Speaker 04:
We all do, of course, but there are a lot of very poor people, especially poor people who are older and who are living just at the poverty line, frankly.

[00:13:46] Speaker 04:
that just don't have them.

[00:13:49] Speaker 04:
They can't get them.

[00:13:51] Speaker 04:
So I would think that before we go down that road, Your Honor, you'd want more information on the record here in terms of- Well, I agree with you.

[00:14:01] Speaker 03:
The government hasn't argued this.

[00:14:04] Speaker 03:
So it wouldn't be legitimate for us to consider it.

[00:14:07] Speaker 03:
But I couldn't help but agree with Judge Walker.

[00:14:11] Speaker 03:
It seemed to me this was a device.

[00:14:14] Speaker 03:
Suppose the government gave

[00:14:17] Speaker 03:
blind people or hearing impaired people, a concessionary credit card or debit card.

[00:14:26] Speaker 04:
That's possible, Your Honor.

[00:14:27] Speaker 04:
I just don't know.

[00:14:29] Speaker 04:
I can only argue what we've got in front of us.

[00:14:35] Speaker 03:
I agree, I agree.

[00:14:38] Speaker 05:
The government has given these audible readers to the vision impaired and they have

[00:14:46] Speaker 05:
very serious drawbacks.

[00:14:50] Speaker 05:
Our own colleague uses one and says that, and I'm sure this is the case with others, that when it's audible to people around that he's got a hundred dollar bill or whatever, that's a huge security risk.

[00:15:13] Speaker 05:
And added to that is the fact that

[00:15:17] Speaker 05:
The vision impaired don't know who is around when this audible reader says whatever it says about you are handing a $100 bill or that is a $100 bill.

[00:15:32] Speaker 05:
That's an interesting point.

[00:15:35] Speaker 05:
All right.

[00:15:36] Speaker 05:
Mr. Vitke, we'll give you a couple of minutes to reply.

[00:15:39] Speaker 05:
Mr. Winnick.

[00:15:42] Speaker 01:
Good morning, Your Honor.

[00:15:43] Speaker 01:
It may please the court, Daniel Winnick for the government.

[00:15:46] Speaker 01:
Redesigning the currency is a monumental task.

[00:15:49] Speaker 01:
And in recognition of that fact, Judge Robertson decided in 2008 not to require the Treasury Department to undertake two separate redesigns of each note, one for accessibility and another for security.

[00:16:01] Speaker 01:
Instead, he directed the department to make each note accessible when it was next redesigned for security reasons.

[00:16:08] Speaker 03:
Plaintiff's note.

[00:16:09] Speaker 03:
Counsel, let me go to the question I asked your colleague.

[00:16:14] Speaker 03:
Do you know how to do it now?

[00:16:17] Speaker 03:
Do you know how to raise the numbers now?

[00:16:20] Speaker 01:
So I appreciate the question, Your Honor, because I appreciate the opportunity to clarify.

[00:16:24] Speaker 01:
What we've said is that we haven't yet completed the testing, the extensive testing required to assure ourselves that a feature will satisfy all of the criteria.

[00:16:36] Speaker 01:
But we do.

[00:16:36] Speaker 01:
We have done over the years a great deal of testing and have arrived at the point

[00:16:41] Speaker 01:
of recommending to the relevant committees any day now.

[00:16:46] Speaker 01:
And we expect that the secretary will determine by the end of the year a particular application method for a tactile feature.

[00:16:54] Speaker 01:
And we have every expectation that that feature as applied in that way will be applied to the $10 note by 2026.

[00:17:01] Speaker 01:
So we're not throwing up our hands by any stretch of the imagination.

[00:17:05] Speaker 01:
We're certainly not speaking out of both sides of our mouths on this.

[00:17:08] Speaker 01:
What we've said is that

[00:17:09] Speaker 01:
because this is such a difficult project, we need to finish the testing, we need to do everything required to assure ourselves, but we do have an idea that it's gonna work.

[00:17:19] Speaker 03:
You have an idea that it's gonna work, but you don't know at this point?

[00:17:23] Speaker 01:
We have not completed the final testing required to assure ourselves that the feature is sufficiently efficacious, that it works with all of the other security features on the redesign node, et cetera, but we have every expectation that this is going to work, that these tests are,

[00:17:38] Speaker 01:
to confirm that, and that we'll be able to implement it on the $10 note in 2026.

[00:17:43] Speaker 01:
We are by no means at the point of throwing up our hands and saying, we don't think we can do this.

[00:17:49] Speaker 03:
Then why do you object to a deadline?

[00:17:54] Speaker 01:
A couple of points here.

[00:17:56] Speaker 01:
First, the motion that they actually brought was to require the $10 note to be rendered accessible by the end of this year, which I think everybody agrees at this point is not possible, and to have

[00:18:08] Speaker 01:
every denomination rendered accessible by 2026.

[00:18:12] Speaker 01:
And the fundamental problem with that proposal and the primary basis of the district court's ruling is that doing that would require the department to decouple the security and accessibility redesign.

[00:18:24] Speaker 01:
So it would require the department to focus first on issuing a redesigned note in each nomination that is accessible, that has a tactile feature, and only then

[00:18:35] Speaker 01:
to do the security redesign of each note.

[00:18:38] Speaker 01:
And the effect of doing that, Director, is quite clear.

[00:18:41] Speaker 01:
The effect of decoupling the redesigns and prioritizing the accessibility redesign would be to delay the security redesigns.

[00:18:48] Speaker 01:
And so the basis of the primary basis of the district court's ruling was that the district court didn't think it was equitable to impose on everyone in the country, every individual, every business and law enforcement, the burden of the increased risk of counterfeiting

[00:19:05] Speaker 01:
in whatever marginal period of delay there is in order of delay of the security redesigns so as to decouple the redesigns and do accessibility first.

[00:19:17] Speaker 03:
Wait a minute.

[00:19:19] Speaker 03:
I gather you expected if you coupled the two, you could do it by 2026.

[00:19:25] Speaker 01:
We could do it by 2026 for that $10 note.

[00:19:28] Speaker 01:
Every note is distinct.

[00:19:29] Speaker 01:
They all have distinct versions of security features.

[00:19:32] Speaker 01:
And so that's why there is a staggered rollout schedule.

[00:19:35] Speaker 03:
So you're suggesting you have no objection to an order, modification of the injunction, ordering you to provide the $10 note by 2026?

[00:19:50] Speaker 01:
Our objection to that, Your Honor, is based simply on the fact that, as the history of this litigation has showed,

[00:19:57] Speaker 01:
There are lots of contingencies here and everything is dependent on testing and, you know, the Secretary's statutory obligation is to ensure that the notes are best protected against counterfeiting, which was the cause of the delay from 2020 to 2026.

[00:20:11] Speaker 01:
So our objection is we wouldn't want to be in the position of contempt if

[00:20:17] Speaker 01:
you know, further developments cause a delay in that date.

[00:20:21] Speaker 01:
I don't expect that.

[00:20:22] Speaker 01:
Certainly, we continue to expect the no will be ready in 2026, but that's the only objection to putting that in a judicial order is that it becomes enforceable by contempt if there are further developments.

[00:20:36] Speaker 01:
I would note, of course, that plaintiffs haven't asked for that.

[00:20:39] Speaker 01:
That's not the modification they proposed.

[00:20:42] Speaker 01:
And the repayal is quite clear that the district court's

[00:20:45] Speaker 01:
a job under Rule 60B-5 is to assess whether the proposed modification is suitably tailored to change circumstances and not to consider whether any modification of the injunction might be equitable if plaintiffs wanted to move for relief limited to that, which is some version of what they did back in 2012.

[00:21:05] Speaker 01:
They're, of course, free to do so, and then there would be briefing and a decision and potentially another appeal from that.

[00:21:14] Speaker 01:
I did want to make sure I speak a little bit to plaintiff's accusations of bad faith.

[00:21:19] Speaker 01:
And the district court recognized repeatedly with great familiarity with this record that the Department of the Treasury and its staff have been working in good faith to comply with the current injunction.

[00:21:30] Speaker 01:
I certainly don't deny that the process of developing a tactile feature has been frustrating for everybody involved and has taken much longer than anybody expected, but there's no basis for plaintiff's assertions of deliberate delay

[00:21:43] Speaker 01:
or deception.

[00:21:44] Speaker 01:
And again, as I noted earlier, the latest status report that we filed indicates that we are on the precipice of recommending an application method to the relevant committees.

[00:21:55] Speaker 01:
We expect the secretary will approve it by the end of the year.

[00:21:58] Speaker 01:
And we have every expectation, although subject to confirmatory testing, that it will be ready to implement on the $10 note by 2026.

[00:22:12] Speaker 01:
On feasibility, what I would

[00:22:13] Speaker 01:
say principally is that that's not the primary basis of the district court's ruling.

[00:22:21] Speaker 01:
The district court didn't say I'm not, didn't say principally I'm not ordering the department to do this because they just can't do it.

[00:22:28] Speaker 01:
The court did say that, they did offer that as an additional reason why the modification shouldn't be granted in addition to the delay to the security redesigns that it would cause.

[00:22:42] Speaker 01:
But really, the basis of the district court's ruling was that decoupling the security and accessibility redesigns would delay the security redesigns and thus expose all Americans, individuals, businesses, and law enforcement to the risks of increased counterfeiting in the period of delay.

[00:23:02] Speaker 02:
Mr. Winnick, you may not know the answer to this.

[00:23:06] Speaker 02:
It's OK if you don't.

[00:23:08] Speaker 02:
But do you know if,

[00:23:12] Speaker 02:
any time and any money has been spent by the treasury on deciding what person to put on the $10 or $20 bill?

[00:23:25] Speaker 01:
So, Your Honor, as you know, I think public reporting has reflected there has been, you know, I think some time spent in addressing that and a decision was made at one point and I also don't know the current status.

[00:23:40] Speaker 01:
to replace one of the portraits.

[00:23:42] Speaker 01:
I want to emphasize there is no such thing as a portrait redesign independent from a security redesign.

[00:23:47] Speaker 02:
What happens is that when the currency is regularly redesigned for security reasons, other changes can be made to the- I understand, but part of what the American Council for the Blind is, I think, understandably frustrated with is that this suit was filed 18 years ago.

[00:24:09] Speaker 02:
they still don't have access to paper currency.

[00:24:14] Speaker 02:
The Rehabilitation Act has been interpreted to statutorily require that the Treasury Department provide them with access to paper currency.

[00:24:28] Speaker 02:
Of course, statutes also require the Treasury Department to make this currency secure from counterfeiting, and that takes time and money.

[00:24:37] Speaker 02:
Both of those things take time and money.

[00:24:39] Speaker 02:
But to my knowledge, there's not a statute that says Treasury must, as a matter of federal law, change the picture of who's on the $10, who's on the $20 bill.

[00:24:50] Speaker 02:
So I guess my question is, why has Treasury spent time and money on who should be on the bill instead of spending that time and that money on the security features and the accessibility for the disabled community features that Treasury is statutorily required to do?

[00:25:09] Speaker 01:
I think I can safely say, Your Honor, that any time and money that has been spent on the contemplation of portraits has not delayed this timeline.

[00:25:19] Speaker 01:
And we've certainly never offered that as a reason to justify the timeline that has occurred.

[00:25:26] Speaker 01:
I agree completely with Your Honor's basic premise, which is that this has taken a long time and that some frustration is understandable.

[00:25:34] Speaker 01:
I'm not here to say that this has been

[00:25:36] Speaker 01:
a process anybody has been delighted with.

[00:25:39] Speaker 01:
But it has largely been a result of the fact, first, that developing a tactile feature has been incredibly challenging as it has.

[00:25:46] Speaker 02:
No, I get that, Mr. Winnick, from the briefing.

[00:25:49] Speaker 02:
And I don't doubt that it's a challenge to do the tactile feature.

[00:25:52] Speaker 02:
As I said in the beginning, I'm not sure, frankly, that you're ever going to be able to do that.

[00:25:58] Speaker 02:
But you would agree with the logic at least that if an agency spends time and money on one thing,

[00:26:04] Speaker 02:
That means it has less time and money to spend on another thing.

[00:26:09] Speaker 01:
At a general level, I accept that logic.

[00:26:13] Speaker 01:
I think the record doesn't remotely reflect.

[00:26:16] Speaker 01:
And I frankly don't know that there has been appreciable amounts of time and money spent on the portrait redesign.

[00:26:25] Speaker 01:
And I haven't heard any suggestion that that has caused the setback in the schedule.

[00:26:30] Speaker 01:
The delay from 2020 to 2026

[00:26:33] Speaker 01:
happened in 2016 when the department became aware of significant new counterfeiting challenges that in the secretary's judgment required an additional six year period of the security redesign in order to ensure that the redesign note would be able to address those counterfeiting risks on a forward looking basis.

[00:26:52] Speaker 01:
It didn't occur in any way because of contemplation of portrait changes.

[00:26:59] Speaker 03:
Of course, we could modify the order by giving you direction as to who to put on the $20 bill.

[00:27:06] Speaker 03:
I have a clear idea who that should be, but maybe that would help the process along.

[00:27:14] Speaker 01:
I thank your honor for the suggestion.

[00:27:23] Speaker 01:
In all seriousness, again, we recognize that this process has been imperfect.

[00:27:27] Speaker 01:
The department is committed

[00:27:29] Speaker 01:
to making this work in the best way that we're able.

[00:27:31] Speaker 01:
We are undertaking testing even now as the status report reflects to ensure that the tactile feature that's recommended for application will be able to satisfy all the criteria and work with a secure and effective currency.

[00:27:46] Speaker 01:
And we have every expectation of being able to implement that on the $10 note by 2026 and on subsequent denominations on the schedule.

[00:27:55] Speaker 01:
laid out.

[00:27:56] Speaker 01:
And if there are no further questions from the court, we'd ask that the district court's denial of the motion be affirmed.

[00:28:04] Speaker 05:
Right.

[00:28:05] Speaker 05:
Thank you.

[00:28:06] Speaker 05:
Mr. Levitzky, why don't you take a couple of minutes?

[00:28:09] Speaker 04:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:28:10] Speaker 04:
Well, first of all, just to note that we agree with court.

[00:28:14] Speaker 04:
I believe it was Judge Walker who said that if they're going to change the portrait,

[00:28:19] Speaker 04:
on the note that then they should do make an accommodation change for the blind and visually disabled.

[00:28:26] Speaker 04:
And we raised that point with government.

[00:28:29] Speaker 04:
Now, with respect to the issue of the delay of the security redesign, if you look at the rationale for the delay of the security redesign, it's largely fictitious.

[00:28:39] Speaker 04:
They say that the delay will be due to the fact that they'll be required to add resources for the purpose of including the RTF on the legacy 2020 note by 2020.

[00:28:50] Speaker 04:
by 2020.

[00:28:52] Speaker 04:
But 2020 has come and passed.

[00:28:54] Speaker 04:
They're not going to have to divert any resources because that deadline is no longer operative.

[00:29:01] Speaker 04:
That argument is essentially mooted by subsequent events.

[00:29:05] Speaker 04:
In addition, I may also add that this is a cost-based argument

[00:29:10] Speaker 04:
The BEP says we only have so much time to do everything.

[00:29:14] Speaker 04:
Well, then, you know, they can add more people, they can add more staff, they can add more contractors.

[00:29:21] Speaker 04:
Yes, that costs money.

[00:29:23] Speaker 04:
But notwithstanding the explicit instruction of this court remanding for additional cost estimates,

[00:29:30] Speaker 04:
they didn't give any cost estimates as to how much it would cost to both add the RDF to one or two or three or four denominations, whatever by 2026, and to do the security redesign.

[00:29:52] Speaker 04:
And I may also add on that point that we begged the district court, we urged the district court, all right, Your Honor, we understand the government is claiming infusibility.

[00:30:02] Speaker 04:
So then can't we just modify the injunctive order to require inclusion of the RTF at least by 2026, at least with respect to those specific denominations for which the government made no claim of infusibility and the district judge refused that order.

[00:30:24] Speaker 04:
And that seems to me very unreasonable.

[00:30:26] Speaker 04:
We could have obviated this entire litigation not been here had the district court just gone back to the government and said, well, what exactly denominations are you claiming are infeasible by 2026?

[00:30:36] Speaker 04:
And had they done that, and had they given us something, then we wouldn't even be here today.

[00:30:44] Speaker 05:
I thought their position was that all denominations.

[00:30:50] Speaker 05:
their positions.

[00:30:51] Speaker 05:
I'm sorry, Your Honor.

[00:30:52] Speaker 05:
To decouple the security from the accessibility would affect all denominations.

[00:31:02] Speaker 04:
Well, Your Honor, it does affect all denominations, but the government made a claim of infeasibility here.

[00:31:09] Speaker 05:
That's what I mean.

[00:31:11] Speaker 05:
I thought their position was it is infeasible with respect to all denominations to decouple

[00:31:17] Speaker 05:
the security from the accessibility?

[00:31:21] Speaker 04:
No, Your Honor, I don't believe that.

[00:31:23] Speaker 04:
Well, that's what the district court concluded, but that's not what the government argued.

[00:31:28] Speaker 04:
What the government argued is that it is infeasible to produce all denominations with the RTF by 2026.

[00:31:38] Speaker 04:
They said, they didn't say though which denominations

[00:31:45] Speaker 04:
In other words, they said we can't do it with all denominations, but they left open the clear implication that they could do it with at least one, probably more than one denominator.

[00:31:55] Speaker 05:
That all means we can't do all implies we could do less than that.

[00:32:00] Speaker 04:
Exactly.

[00:32:01] Speaker 04:
And that's the intent.

[00:32:03] Speaker 04:
That's the way we read it.

[00:32:03] Speaker 04:
And the government more or less conceded in their brief and before this court that they could add the RTF to more than one denomination by 2026.

[00:32:13] Speaker 05:
All right.

[00:32:14] Speaker 05:
If there are no more questions, then gentlemen, your case is submitted.

[00:32:18] Speaker 04:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:32:19] Speaker 03:
I have one more question, Judge Henderson.

[00:32:22] Speaker 03:
I'd like to ask the government again.

[00:32:26] Speaker 03:
What is your response to the last point?

[00:32:29] Speaker 03:
Have you said all or nothing?

[00:32:32] Speaker 03:
The district court said all or nothing.

[00:32:34] Speaker 03:
What about his argument that you should be required to deal with

[00:32:42] Speaker 03:
those denominations that you can do.

[00:32:46] Speaker 01:
The response, Your Honor, is decoupling the security and accessibility redesigns for any denominations.

[00:32:53] Speaker 01:
And this is what the district court said.

[00:32:55] Speaker 01:
would delay the security redesigns.

[00:32:57] Speaker 01:
That's why that's our primary rationale, and it has really nothing to do with feasibility.

[00:33:02] Speaker 01:
Even if it's feasible that we do more than the $10 note, that we put the tactile feature on notes other than the $10 bill by 2026, doing that would require us to delay the security redesigns.

[00:33:14] Speaker 01:
It would expose everybody to an increased risk of counterfeiting.

[00:33:16] Speaker 01:
That's the basis on which we urge

[00:33:18] Speaker 01:
the affirmance of the district court ruling.

[00:33:20] Speaker 01:
And again, it just has nothing to do with it.

[00:33:22] Speaker 03:
Well, wait a minute.

[00:33:22] Speaker 03:
I thought you said you expected you would be able to do all of them by 2026.

[00:33:27] Speaker 01:
No, Your Honor.

[00:33:29] Speaker 03:
Well, we expect- Just the $10 bill?

[00:33:32] Speaker 01:
Correct.

[00:33:32] Speaker 01:
And we expect that we'll be able to put the tactile feature on all of the other denominations on the current schedule for the security redesigns of those denominations, which runs out, it's in the briefs, one in 2028, one in 2030, and so forth.

[00:33:46] Speaker 01:
So we expect that it will be feasible to put the tactile feature on all of the denominations by those dates.

[00:33:52] Speaker 01:
But what plaintiffs have fundamentally asked is that we be required to prioritize the accessibility redesign over the security redesign.

[00:34:00] Speaker 01:
And that would delay the security redesigns.

[00:34:03] Speaker 01:
And the primary basis of the district court's ruling was that it wasn't equitable to impose that delay.

[00:34:08] Speaker 01:
And that's the basis on which we urge affirmance.

[00:34:10] Speaker 05:
Thank you.

[00:34:12] Speaker 05:
I just do have one more question on the

[00:34:16] Speaker 05:
updated timeline, Mr. Winnick, as of 2017.

[00:34:20] Speaker 05:
The last, the outside date is for the $50 bill, 2032 to 2035.

[00:34:26] Speaker 01:
I think, Your Honor, that it's not the 50.

[00:34:31] Speaker 01:
I think the 50 by the current schedule is actually the next one to be redesigned after the 10.

[00:34:38] Speaker 01:
It's then the 20 by 2030, the five between 2032 and 35 and 100 between 2034 and 2038, which is I think a fairly standard staggered schedule owing to the need to address the distinct security features of each note.

[00:34:55] Speaker 05:
Okay.

[00:34:55] Speaker 05:
I think it changed then from 2017.

[00:34:57] Speaker 01:
It did change a little bit, Your Honor.

[00:34:59] Speaker 05:
All right.

[00:35:00] Speaker 05:
Thank you.

[00:35:01] Speaker 05:
Any more questions?

[00:35:03] Speaker 04:
Your Honor, can I just respond briefly?

[00:35:06] Speaker 04:
Go ahead.

[00:35:07] Speaker 04:
Thank you, your honor.

[00:35:08] Speaker 04:
I would urge the court to take a very, very close look at paragraph 10.

[00:35:12] Speaker 04:
Mr. Olaher's declaration dated February 2, February 8, 2019, at page 739 of the record.

[00:35:22] Speaker 04:
The entire sum and substance of the delayed claim is based on that single paragraph.

[00:35:28] Speaker 04:
And what does Mr. Olaher say?

[00:35:29] Speaker 04:
He says that any effort to pursue a fixing an RTF to the legacy, the legacy $10 note,

[00:35:37] Speaker 04:
would divert resources and therefore cause a delay.

[00:35:41] Speaker 04:
We're not asking anymore that they even include the RTF on the legacy $10 note.

[00:35:48] Speaker 04:
That deadline has come and passed.

[00:35:51] Speaker 04:
That deadline was set for 2020.

[00:35:52] Speaker 04:
It's not going to happen.

[00:35:56] Speaker 04:
We're not even asking this tire sum and substance of the delay claim is based on that paragraph, which is truly mooted and non-operative.

[00:36:06] Speaker 05:
All right, well, we need to call an end to these proceedings or we'll go back and forth forever.

[00:36:15] Speaker 05:
All right, gentlemen, thank you.

[00:36:17] Speaker 05:
Your case is submitted.

[00:36:19] Speaker 05:
Thank you, Your Honor.