happens it's our position that the district court's order was final it had all the markings of a final order it resolved all of the issues in the case it granted relief to one of the parties the court and our judgement in favor of that's hard find that the order was not final it would fall into the exception for practical phonology because several of the holdings of the court i'm all requirements that the agency would have to administer in any future trust application of the u k would be and it would not have an opportunity to challenge the old in that any point before this court how would you distinguish this case from our decision in miami tribe of oklahoma where where we did allow the v a to appeal its own decision after an administrative remained your honor i have to admit i'm not familiar at this no i can't recall the distinction between that case oklahoma at the moment but it is our position that in any true future land of the trust application the district court is requiring the b o h to gain you know confound check nation of oklahoma concern and to tribe appeal if the department denies the application on remand the tribe could appeal but there are precedents from the supreme court in this court which say that it's practically final with respect to the agency that's the party that the that section was congress expanding in the secretary's authority to tribes that were not necessarily in compas within the ira's definition identity and those are recognized tribes of indians residing in indian reorganization and doesn't section three depend on the definition of indian in the indian reorganization act that's what the district court held and it's our contention that in so holding the district court confused benefits and beneficiaries under the indian or indian tribes under the ira were the beneficiaries of certain rights and privileges section three took benefits rights and privileges that were given to those indian tribes on the under the section of the i w a section for purposes of determining whether which indians were able to form local cooperatives associations or congress explicitly said that for purposes especially for informing local cooperative leave the ira and the oh i w a the oh i w a has its own provision for allowing indians and indian tribes and corporations to take land into trust white why don't why doesn't that suggest that when they said rights and privileges they didn't mean the trust the right to take land into trust where you usa because under the ira you certainly could take agricultural land into trust right it's broad enough to cover that so what was the purpose of having oh well as i said your honor i think the purpose was that section one doesn't get at all we under the trust acquisitions where as section five of the ira does so i think which to disappoint my point if you already had that power because i gave you the privileges agree that there is an overlap between section one and section three but i believe the point stands that there is no the way in which a section three broad that says rights and privileges and that includes the to acquire interesting lands including trust or otherwise restrict allotments for the purpose of providing land for indians the provisions and simply doesn't apply here is that your position no six took that right or privilege which is the ability to have land taken to trust and it gave that to a different group of people recognized oklahoma indian tribes it's hard to listen that the district  purposes of land acquisition in trusts that the oklahoma tribes would be treated differently from tribes in other states and if so why would congress want to do that interpretations mean that the united states of america is going to treat the tribes in oklahoma differently from tribes in other places and other states for purposes of taking went into acquisition was ition intrust the short answer is yes again this is a complicated historical question but in the one nine hundred thirty nine there were those in congress who believed that it was obvious who was an indian and oklahoma i would basically have one reside in eastern oklahoma so recognize oklahoma indian tribe didn't need further explanation it didn't need for the definition but i'm thinking more broadly indian tribes around the united states congress did feel the is a successor interest to the historical cherokee nation and this day you k b now has a shared reservation with the cherokee nation that's why we're here none of the decisions made exist around that one that's why we're here sixty six and was first brought forth really in this case in the pellets brief at the time reference the treaty negotiations rights in sixty six and in those negotiations t we had one cherokee nation and they had two factions and they settled on different parcels of the same historical reservation land and that today they're recognized by the federal government as two separate tribes with equal powers and a right to be treated equally under the law well let's say that i obviously wouldn't agree that that's the situation let's say that because we have because what we have your as between the allowing it to be taken into trust for them when they have they own it in fee simple and it's on the land where they have resided for two hundred years you no i don't contend that ok so right if their team conflict the statute would be what we would enforce that's correct your honor and again you're going to be going to the nine hundred ninety nine i understand that and let's look at the record in this case the nine hundred ninety nine amendment says no fines should be used to take and this is an interior appropriations bill i'm sorry the nazi not appropriations act says no funds should one dealing with how the district court dealt with that the district court said that's purely dealing with the issues of funding that's correct in this century honor that appropriate appropriations act only applies to interior funding and our position is that the land that they're talking about assuming that assuming that there's not other reasons why that particular act isn't valid for a march standpoint assuming that the firms that they're talking maybe qualify that just just a little well let me do this ok ask you let me ask you a question and you can say whatever you want ok so if that were to happen that we didn't and it goes back to the agency and the cherokee nation doesn't give consent to the acquisition is every indication that it will then how can the legal issues decided by the district court fist fighting the the question it occurred in looking back that the district court really needed since we had all the issues and here's why because in the record in front of the district court says well we didn't consider car sherry in this matter because we're core spokesman on you didn't consider cautionary but your honor carcieri was considered in this matter because it's clear from the record in the two thousand and nine decision from the b s a they said to trust under section five of the ira for the try and then they turn around say and then later they turn around say we need to we need to examine carsharing then they come back in n they state that we have tried that and this is from a email in the record we have tried to use the opening of the footnote six in car series and the red unique language the the conflicts to deal with with if it's a shared reservation then the service areas in the services of the charities are for the dollars the charities are receiving the u k b would make application for take more questions but other than that ok thank you thank you coun little bit because the ira doesn't put any geographic constraints on the secretary in terms of making land into trust acquisitions for various tribes you know the secretary under the statute could make land into