real estate taxes the land was not the the land was in the decision was found not to be land over which the cuban nation has sovereign control the claim in the only issue i believe before this court on appeal is that the junction was granted solely on the basis that the accumulation of the tribal immunity from suit we submit that this was reversible error and asked to be reversed and it's an account to be allowed to proceed with tax for closure on this property for several reasons the tribal immunity exception does not operate to protect these five parcels for parcels now after a merger of two doesn't operate emovable property and all that have been made before they have not been bought even or by our court or above a supreme court it may well be that that is now and it's up to the supreme court to fix it and not up to us i mean is that what you are arguing essentially saying the supreme court will and should change it and the supreme court has told us that when value will and should change it we should let them do it and not try to and ourselves ahead well let your honor that's that's one of the arguments that the cuban nation has made i listened to your honor during the last motion say that in your twenty five years on the bench you would see many times or cases come up on procedural issues and then later when they come up on the merits the decision is different and that's what happened here there was an injunction proceeding the case came before this court and i mean my firm did not handle that case but everything i've read indicates several things have happened since twenty thousand one hundred and forty one was the immovable property argument was not put squarely before the district court or the nd circuit secondly the case arose here on the likelihood of success in employment or injunction to stop the irreparable harm that would result from you know ten new owners and not knowing for sure who on the property since two thousand a fourteen we have the benefit of the supreme court's longer in decision in this in the underlying case as well as the nd circuit case the focus was on that yucca mountain solution and all the lower courts around the country argued that you know i came out was drawing a distinction between in ram and then persona the supreme court made it clear to us in the longer in case that yakama is this case these cases are not about interim and in persona you misread that case the case is not about whether the around is that if the property is immovable if the property is immovable and there's no sovereignty over the land by the visiting sovereign then that land for real estate ownership use then and rejected by our court and that again you know there are any number of situations which seem kind of absurd that somebody has done something and yet sovereign immunity keeps that person from being sued some social security cases any number of things and isn't really up to us i think so your honor i think the right decision should be made i think city of cheryl said that this land can be taxed by the local real estate business a palette anything else is unfair they miss a pallet it's unfair that neighboring landowners whether it's eminent domain zoning or taxes on the land real immovable property exception governs what i think should be able to foreclose i think that the nation would say with some justification that there's a difference between imposing a ta and enforcing through foreclosure on the property what is essentially a monetary debt and the foreign sovereign immunity zakk distinguishes between jurisdictional immunity do to collect the tax might be limited so i think that there's some line drawing to be done here that you're not entirely acknowledging i responded please do yeah yeah you have two minutes to pursue all your honor in the permanent mission case of india right mind bollea it was made clear that the tax lien is actually an interference on the property no one no one took the position that that there's a difference between tax collection t itself interferes with the possession and use of the property it's not foreclosure it's not for closure that affects the transfer and title and this seems to me different from the eminent domain case the georgia and chattanooga case where situation with a movable property in a tax lien that's imposed by operation of state law the lien is on the land there's a leak the question is whether we can collect it city cheryl the supreme court said you can you can impose real estate taxes i would think that if they meant you can impose them but you can't collect them somebody would have told us that they said you can collect taxes well if you can't collect them if you can't impose the tax on the land you can't foreclose you reall decided by anyone yet he descended from the idea that we don't need to send it back to state of washington with this it's been briefed it was only raised in the reply brief by the united states government and the majority of the court felt that they needed an opportunity only the real only dissent was not on the substantive nature of the ruling and the doctrine of movable property but rather on the procedural aspect that it was being sent back and he thought that they could do  that we are not technically bound i agree with you that twice our court has said your position is with the dominant one but we're not bound by that are we your honor the previous injunction presented this very legal issue and this court rejected the very same arguments the county is making it rejected the cheryl argument and more significantly it rejected the immovable property argument that the county is now making or he's really really squarely we and analyze the immovable property exception we look back at the restatement we mean i think was a very brief discussion and it was in the context as judge calibers is saying  section of the argument and it was argued extensively in oral argument i would urge the court to go back and listen to the two thousand and fourteen argument in this case when counsel for the county made the point that when a prince purchases land in another's argument you are making is that we deference to a previous panel that looked at this and told us quite clearly what it believed that is different from our being bound by it but three of our colleagues spoke about it at least at lunch it's a little embarrassing if we say you know you spoke about it but we think it's nonsense again i submit it's a legal issue not dependent on facts that were further developed but laying that aside this court correctly decided on the merits the been a mill makes clear and the cases before it that sovereign immunity is the that issue recognize that further briefing may develop contours in there are three reasons three separate reasons all of which are substantial why the movable property doesn't apply here one is this court recognized carney in your questions it does not apply to a foreclosure action the issue of enforcement is distinct from the issue of imposition of the tax nd in this is very important when congress address the very issue enforcement in the case of foreign sovereigns it require that the property be used for commercial use and this court in its prior decision in this case emphasized that that exception for commercial uses does not distinct from the immovable property exception itself and it makes clear it only applies when the property is used for commercial reason and we know that the supreme court has rejected that distinction  ahead please the rd reason just to say it so i can come back to it this land it is reservation land and i submit there is never been a case holding that when an indian nation that was granted reservation land by treaty loses that land in an unlawful transaction by the state of new york re acquires that land could lose that land by foreclosure and that's just a rd separate reason that is different this is not a foreign star alternative argument you  retain authority over their own reservation there is never been a case holding that for closure would be allowed this is precisely the sort of line drawing that should be left to congress because the doctrine of sovereign immunity is a hence can be taxed and was made between traditional reservation property investor property that is correct we are subject to the imposition of appropriate tax laws we have course contend that under new york state law because this is reservation land it is not even subject to tax with you last minute no we haven't lost that hasn't been litigated because we're also immune from suit and that immunity exists for multiple reasons exists as a part of our inherent sovereignty but as of this immovable property exception i submit that the fact that we this is not outside of our domain but this is treaty land makes yet another distinction and again that's an issue not for this court to resolve or even the supreme court the supreme court has made clear that's a question for the political branches here the united states has consistently maintained that immovable property exception does not apply to indian nations that was the point of the united states in the upper scheduled case saying the whole movable property doctrine does not apply to indian nations so that's a position of the executive branch but ultimately the supreme court has made clear that this is an issue for congress congress does legislate in the space in one thousand nine hundred and ninety eight in the key or decision the supreme court said we're not going to carve out an exception for commercial activity questioning whether that made sense but deferring to congress and congress has not acted when congress did act as to foreign sovereigns it limited this so called immovable property exception when it comes to foreclosure in section commercial properties and that is a distinction for indian nations congress has never imposed despite the keyword decision inviting congress essentially to act in the space congress has acted for foreign sovereign in acted the entire foreign sovereign immunity zakk it has not comparably acted for indian nations leaving the law as it is and the law is clear and that's with this court recognized in two thousand and fourteen let me ask a factual questions the records show whether these five parcels that were reacquired by the tribe received any services from the county or nearby municipalities and of the record does not show what the these properties are used for again this case has been litigated on the basis of sovereign immunity from suit which is respect accorded to the indian nation as a sovereign i'm just interested in you know is there are there is there plumbing is there water and that is the kind of alternative the supreme court has emphasized is appropriate and as we know the united nation in the state of new york and its subdivisions reached an agreement to deal with these what i'm driving at is that these kind of trade offs services payments sovereign to sovereign are often in most appropriate you dealt with by negotiation that is one of the purposes of the sovereign immunity doctrine and that's what the recognizes that that he wasn't an emirate with the prospect of chains or wars but nevertheless he recognized that the doctrine might not apply to indian nations and he wasn't going to decide that issue and leave it at the heart of what underlies the objection tax can be imposed obligation to collect the tax is valid but no you can't bring an action to enforce it that tension is inherent in the doctrine of sovereign immunity from suit even when the tax is valid the restatement recognises in section sixty five dollars comment the that there is a tension between the validity of a tax obligation and the means to enforce it in yes maybe this isn't the most efficient means to enforce it imposing a lien which prevents a sale or land into trust those negotiation there are cases that say that there's ways to deal with this immunity and contracts negotiations and so on we didn't have that opportunity here seneca county the cuban nation purchased the land there in our county they get treated the same as all the rest of the landowners are subject to zoning issues and all the others all the services are made available we're not asking to treat them differently we want to just treated the same as everybody else and pay the freight no free rides on the real estate issues that are provided this land we in services because we can't collect i'm not sure your honor but i know one of the things that we're interested in is not having any conflict with them and not having any of our  decided outside of the courtrooms we want we want them to be neighbors we just wanna pay the freight that's required of all the other neighbors one of the arguments made was that sovereign immunity line was drawn baseline and so when your honor as is justice thomas said this law of a movable property is supporting book law as long as there have been warm books i think is the quote it's been around forever i don't know why it hasn't been decided by anybody every time the supreme court agrees to take search yari the unions or the indians agree to waive sovereign immunity so the issue doesn't get decided by them but it's clear that it's been around forever it's no exception it's co existed with represent a man but i can find those two words the most immovable property in your decision or that decision and that boggles my mind i've been in front of this court for about thirty five years and i know that when they decide in issue they at least