bottle and proceed now for this is an extraordinary case not only did the district court or meant judicial review directly against the president it created an entire section of executive order judicial caution and one way ratchet that would allow a president to withdraw lands from exploration and production but not allow any future president to restore the productive use it's important to pause to recognize for a nd you mess practical significance of  that even putting aside the important constitutional and administrative law issues involved in this decision below closes one hundred and twenty eight million acres on the shelf where significant resources are housed vital interests present here the state of alaska for instance depends on from present revenue just or thousands of jobs i could speak on all the relevant defenses and certainly i'm bill to answer any of your questions but i'd like to focus my limited time today on  before you was the executive order and you know you gave just five days after that was issued you might think it was imminent and here we are three years one month d and two days after the lawsuit filed in three years one month and a week after an executive order was issued and there's still been no permit granting and we don't think that you can possibly complain about usury you know seismic testing when congress has given you a very particular remedy so i think that's obviously part of our rightness argument but it's also our standing humans i mean the notion that there was even a injury here when the permits have an issue even that long three years ago it's  acres which is more than a half one million you know square kilometers and the best there standing decoration say is that sometimes ships will get we've been hundreds of kilometers of doing this i think test and we're going hundreds of kilometers  if you're able to move to the merits yes so on the merits your honor i would say that we think that this statute is clear that the phrase from time to time is  for the intervenor american petroleum institute this is pretty clear has made clear that longstanding practice can inform the proper interpretation of a statute that comes from the new process case the saxby case in the midwest oil case which interestingly was in many respects the opposite of this case in the sense of the statute to provide there was no opportunity for the executive to to withdraw land and yet the court found that such a  here the reality is that the plainest position is one that withdrawals are permanent and cannot be changed and yet it isn't is correct we would submit that all five of the last presidents have applied the statute incorrectly and of course the result in conclusion should be that if the plaintiffs were wrong not those presidents and i say that because there have been thirteen drawls in the w bush of nine hundred and ninety when he imposed a more is his st with all his so only until two thousand specifically this was not a permanent withdrawal rather the requirements of the five years president must determine which areas will be opened for leasing during the next five year period that's three decide what areas are in or not but there are specific statutory requirements that are that are imposed upon the secretary of interior to determine which area how to determine which areas to take allow make available which is not there's a long list of requirements that the president is not free to direct  president well i'm saying the secretary must follow the section eighteen requirements to determine which areas are going to leasing the president can trump that by exercising his pallor under section twelve we're we're we're reconciling session twelve sessions eight secretary of interior is required to follow the dictates of cars and section eighteen which will car a slew of faffing determinations fassel terminations if they are if the facts support leasing then yes he's compelled to do that sure he's like any other executive officer and i started with what mr bush did but mr clinton president clinton excuse me did the same thing his withdrawal was simply a time limited one and he said and i can revote this is this can be revoked in the interest of national security doesn't appear in the face of twelve a but he imposed that requirement then in two thousand and seventeen as i say i think are my final point would be that the that the provision cannot be interpreted to contradict the purpose of your sister  the act obsolescent objective the expeditious development of those years resources well they cannot be interpreted consistent with that to allow any president to determine for all future presidents that large areas the executive order was to speed leasing exploration in the area pat all shelf including specifically two x nine streamline seismic survey  industry trade group representing specifically the seismic industry immediately issued a statement praising the president for opening new areas harling for our exploration seismic exploration of those t the text on the test clearly allows the president to withdraw lands from this is issue it doesn't matter whether that includes the power to put it time limitation on  withdraw to the resolution of this case so the district court the district court said that's that's probably within the terms of the statute when the president withdraws land he can put an expiration date on a draw and say i withdraw these lands for ten years or fourteen years salutary counterbalance to the general we just end quickly by saying we have not we never saw an injunction against the president person we asked for injunctive relief against the agency officials tasked with carrying out the president's order and we ask for declar within the district court's discretion and it's fully consistent with this court's decision in san francisco versus trump two years ago in a case in which there is a separation of terrorist challenge to a presidential order directing agency aspiration that you your hat i read is giving the choice of an expiration date congress congress can always set an expiration date the president did and that phrasing without specific withdrawal every other indication in president obama's withdrawal talks about ensuring that these resources are remain safeguarded for future generations it talks about very long term generation level quickly st of all presidents can't give themselves power that congress has denied so i think that whatever presidents office of their power was and we can only guess because we have no executive branch interpretation of twelve a allowing anything other than withdrawal shall now it does know the secretary uses best judgment about energy needs i would suggest to you that while it's not a mandatory duty to issue a plan it is certainly something that subject you for abuse of discretion it's not something that's