forest st the district court will you consider the express stated reason of the secretary of the interior and its actual cancellation decision specifically the secretary concluded that when the lease was originally issued it violated the national environmental policy act on the as well as the national historic preservation act for the n h k now that failure to review the agency's actual stated express reasons for  the nd main error that the district court committed on the merits was that it held contrary to the record that interior both ignored and rejected out of hand plaintiff's purported reliance interest that conclusion was contrary to the record because plaintiffs for once interest were not so serious or substantial to require a discussion under the fox t v scheme but even if they were the secretary's cancellation decision claimed for his expenses and on legal expenses and so the court's conclusion that reliance interest for not adequately considered was contrary to record and also warrants  there's a lease and there's the application to drill i'm trying to figure out if you don't have if the application to drill is not to be granted for a lot of reasons explained in your decision making him there how can you have a lease because what's lease here is not really land was leased as sort of a right to access the minerals underneath in this case it's a mineral to figure out how one how the lease can operate if there can be no development of the minerals in the facts of this case i think that's correct josh will want to believe that because the secretary concluded in agreement with  occupancy throughout the entirety of the lease area so have they i don't get i'm trying to get to your question in a different way but having tear in the lease itself said well we're going to grant the lease but it's subject to not occupying the surface except for exploratory wells marsport or drilling until you actually submit a proposal for application mission control and we have more detail about where the surface and actual occur and so forth and subject to our  further need for review and that's when we'll give you permission to occupy the entirety of the surface that's not what it did here it may do that in some leases but the stipulations for these leases suffer from that flaw that this court in peterson found to be fatal which is that they don't prohibit surface occupancy throughout the entirety of the area so you're felipe you're correct that they could not function apart from from  and stipulations to prohibit difference and so it was essentially makes it and makes the lease not worth very much and if they can't drill anywhere i mean in other cases maybe not worth very much is not the same thing as that there can be no practical leasing because the lease again as i understand it is not a lands of the land and it goes along with it but it's the right to extract minerals in a designated area right no impacts to the tribes cultural interests and i think without specific finding with which the secretary of agriculture and the secretary of the interior both concurred that we do have a factual situation where drilling would not decision i understood your least and you deal with that you replied to the i understood your opening brief here to be asking us to reverse a district court on the reasons he which was delayed and reliance and to one of those issues in the st instance because obviously this court's in a better position to rule the reasoning of you know judge if they've opined on the question it's a question of st impression but i think this court as you know the issues have and this court certainly has the tools to decide these cured questions of law based on the record that the parties have presented here it's the novo review of the administrative record as to the merits issue as to the issue of whether the secretary of the interior has authority to cancel lease that's a also purely legal question and their arguments i think this court should take the opportunity to squarely reject those arguments given towards recent decision in this overstate case that applies the secretary's hands we think the logic of that decision and the supreme court's decision in both shape make abundantly clear that there's this long line of statutes has a long historical pedigree charging it sector  interior and before him the secretary of the treasury of supervising the management of the public lands and so long as the secretary retains control or authority of the few title he has authority to dispose of of and thirty six dollars is the document from the mid one thousand nine hundred and eighty s in which the my clients in this case raised the issue of the least being illegal under the authority that had developed and eighty s and that issue persisted through the numerous subsequent approvals and has been in the record that this lease holder inherited you know you know approaching thirty  years the other point i'd like to make with my time this morning is that when we look back to this long line of case law supporting the enduring nature of the interior secretary's ministry to cancellation authority what we see is it's a grounded in the supreme court's concern in cases like knight versus united land association that the secretary had to have a heart attack the public's interest in the public lands and that concern is front and center in this case the challenge to police cancelation decision protects an area that the blackfeet tribe has described as its last traditional sacred territory it's an area that offers important and numerous other sensitive species adjacent to glacier national park the inconsistency of oil and gas development with those values as underscored by a host of ackman ranging from administrative and legislative mineral with drawls to the designation of the traditional cultural district to the opinion of the advisory council here that made clear that it or oil and gas development on this lease would inflict such a severe blow to the blackfeet tribes cultural interests that their ability to practice their cultural traditions in this area would be lost so for my clients for our interest the invalidity of this lease is critical to their ability to protect not only their is but the larger public interest in this landscape adjacent to glacier national park on the other side solon x has options to protect its economic interest the griffin and griffin exploration case cited in our brief makes clear that even with a waffle cancellation of its leased by the secretary solon x has a contract claim in the federal court of claims against the united states for damages from that it is is the stain through investments and and if you can prove expectation damages for this least so so an ex has options there is no such safety net for the public interest in these lands for the tribes interest and for my client's interest and that's a very important consideration we as the granny when there are a lot of these leases cancellation of their lease for instance by a federal court as happened in the bob marshall case on on remand would not think they had a viable contract claim but the given griffin case makes clear they do in fact have such a claim in the case of the badger to medicine in particular the area we're talking about in this case the lease really which has have occurred voluntarily to date for the most part there were the relinquished that occurred after congress established a mineral withdrawal in two thousand six and provided tax incentives for relinquishment of leases there was a large scale devon lease relinquishment that occurred about the same time this lease was cancelled in which devon acknowledge that was as they said the right thing to do there was the monkey police cancellation that was challenged before this court subject to a settlement recently which i saw in the courts seemed some indication of that but you know that was resolved amicably through settlement the only one that really the only holdout issue in terms of i can tell a contest to the cancellation of the lease in this area is the controversy before the court here today so naturally i kind of have the circumstances that were presented that to the court claims thank you for the opportunity appreciate we ask you to reverse the district court and to be clear reversed on the m years it's arbitrary capricious and violation of their delegated authority because whatever authority agencies may have to reconsider their decisions that authority must be exercised within a reasonable period of that the cancellation that it up held was undertaken within the thirty days allowed for appeal they remark about the reasonable time several times and even warn future courts not to use this case as a years and certainly not more than thirty years as the case here and even more recently in the ivy sports medicine case this court ordered that language several times discussed timely fashion reasonable amount of time and even then the silver stake which the pounds again rely on fairly heavily reconsideration not cases occurred near months after the initial decision and it was immediately after within the ordinary course as soon as they're made aware of the problem these are all these are months weeks periods of time this isn't a an agency changing policy generation later and then reversing a thirty something year old reasons it's the consequences it's you know delaying of themself which is what the district doesn't make something arbitrary which is you have to look to see what the consequences are right and it says if you do you agree with me court said it was delayed and the delay was egregious that's the largest most obvious fact here but it wasn't just the delay it was the fact that the agencies have spent decades affirmatively stating that the lease was valid both explicitly and implicitly was very much in question throughout all that time period is that right yes your honor and can you explain to me how when you have a lease of mineral rights that process there is no opportunity to look to see if there might be mitigated one of i mean there's all this time has gone by and there were it was it wasn't as though so much as log off in the process there were as you show lots of communications back and forth i'm  trying to understand how they would have thought what they would have thought would have been left of the least of these determinations which were very much about can we extract minerals in this area consistent with environmental and cultural and on tribal religious practice rolls and that's what they had to keep suspending release because you'd have to as i understand it would have had to keep paying rents and royalties on extracted minerals so if they've been saying for sort of year after year after year for a couple decades of that we're not sure we're going to be able to we're still deciding whether we can get minerals not here or not i think it's important looking back to what's left of elise and so looking back at the history of this case i think it's a more direct igniters that the a b c was approved on four separate occasions and so much that every reason to believe that this once this process granted of course that they would have and be able to develop there is no indication from agencies that they would be able to do so  no indication that there was environmental impacts or historical impacts at all so i think while the actual ability to drill on that land was someone in question was opened to certain mitigation efforts the or mention the reliance of course what was the evidence of the lines or whether that there's not great evidence of lines in the record itself again because the agency abruptly switched his decision didn't address reliance interest unless you made an argument like that or unless you offered something the suggester alliance interest so that's why i'm asking what was the alliance interest that would prompt the court to rely isn't again what i'm asking for so the only thing i see is the director of the declaration of mr long all in support of the motion for summary judgment and the only thing he mentions in that is that he spent over thirty five thousand dollars that's it or like throughout the after that point there is all through the section one of six process which required some expert to send representatives to attend those meetings or travel costs time time cost as a series of different things they spend as long as there is the dollars no your honor and that's because i guess look at under state farm the factor to the agencies entirely failed to consider the possibility this all makes me happy like they didn't say great thirty five thousand or cancellation and title in the next reprint of them so they addressed what appears to be the only specific claim of reliance raise either before the agency or in the district court that that's what i'm  interests but also because this decision represents an abrupt and unexplained departure from h c precedent and we see that from the texas oil case an association of data processing organizations cases that when an agency acts a certain with trying to figure out the sudden switch here because they were studying and working through this kind of mineral we developed on this land along for almost from almost from the get go and then you  administrative appeal or in federal district court right but has been raised during the scoping process for any i a s and then he says i have no authority to cancel or change the lease but that doesn't mean  understanding is that the realty lease was raised to the national wildlife federation play back in the early ninety's after the ninety three dollars decision so it seems like that wasn't  and fox t v makes clear that those reasons don't have to be necessarily better than the prior reason this agency just has to believe they're better and that signal of the change in as a bad knowledge and changing position demonstrates that the agency believe them to fully resolved by a court the national wildlife federation case was lots of the problem it was as you said implicitly but it's not clear to me how explicitly they were it was about the least cancellation risk of least cancellation they s leasing stage and the question was whether the agency could cure those at the subsequent stage when or when it processed the application for a permit to drill so i think because the case law says this is a defect here and maybe they have another seven years to submit a new application for permission to drill and somehow demonstrate that they have satisfied all the cultural concerns but given the secretary's finding on the cultural issues i just don't see how they could