Opinion ID: 210370
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Relevance and Preservation of Network Elements Other Than IMLA of 1938

Text: At the threshold, the government asserts that the statutes and regulations asserted by the Nation are irrelevant because Lease 8580 is an IMLA lease, and the Secretary's approval occurred pursuant to IMLA, not any of the provisions upon which the Tribe now relies for its `network.' U.S. Br. 34. Nothing within the IMLA of 1938 suggests, however, that it governs particular leases to the exclusion of all other statutes and regulations. The repeal provision of the IMLA of 1938, § 7, applies only to acts or parts of acts existing prior to and inconsistent with the IMLA. Moreover, the Act expressly contemplates that its provisions interact with those of other laws. See IMLA of 1938, § 7, 25 U.S.C. § 396d (All operations under any oil, gas, or other mineral lease issued pursuant to the terms of sections 396a to 396g of this title or any other Act affecting restricted Indian lands shall be subject to the rules and regulations promulgated by the Secretary of the Interior.). Therefore, the court rejects the government's argument that the IMLA of 1938 is the only possible substantive source of law in this case. As an alternative ground for affirmance, the government asserts that the Nation waived its breach of trust claim based on a network of statutes and regulations. The government's waiver argument fails for several reasons. First, after reviewing the complaint, summary judgment briefs, motion for reconsideration briefs, briefs to this court in its first appeal, and briefs to the Supreme Court, the Court of Federal Claims concluded that the Nation's advocacy on behalf of jurisdiction always included the network argument, albeit in a secondary role. Navajo V, 68 Fed.Cl. at 810. The government does not dispute this conclusion, and that alone should defeat its waiver argument. Similarly, we can find no error and thus affirm the Court of Federal Claims on this issue. Second, [i]t is indeed the general rule that issues must be raised in lower courts in order to be preserved as potential grounds of decision in higher courts. But this principle does not demand the incantation of particular words; rather, it requires that the lower court be fairly put on notice as to the substance of the issue. Nelson v. Adams USA, Inc., 529 U.S. 460, 469, 120 S.Ct. 1579, 146 L.Ed.2d 530 (2000); see also Caterpillar Inc. v. Sturman Indus., Inc., 387 F.3d 1358, 1371 (Fed.Cir.2004) (noting that rationales of waiver doctrine are to encourage parties to develop a full record of the case and to inform the court about potential errors so as to put the court on notice of mistakes that, if left uncorrected, may result in reversal on appeal). By asserting a breach of trust claim based on a network of statutes and regulations including the IMLA of 1938, the Nation preserved a breach of trust claim based on a network of statutes and regulations regardless of whether the IMLA of 1938 is included. The waiver doctrine does not require, as the government asserts, that the Nation preserve each particular network permutation. Third, the matter of what questions may be taken up and resolved for the first time on appeal is one left primarily to the discretion of the courts of appeals, to be exercised on the facts of individual cases. Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 121, 96 S.Ct. 2868, 49 L.Ed.2d 826 (1976); see also Harris Corp. v. Ericsson Inc., 417 F.3d 1241, 1251 (Fed.Cir.2005) (An appellate court retains case-by-case discretion over whether to apply waiver. (citations omitted)). For example, [w]hen an issue or claim is properly before the court, the court is not limited to the particular legal theories advanced by the parties, but rather retains the independent power to identify and apply the proper construction of governing law. Kamen v. Kemper Fin. Servs., Inc., 500 U.S. 90, 99, 111 S.Ct. 1711, 114 L.Ed.2d 152 (1991). We conclude that there was no applicable waiver, and we proceed to evaluate the network of statutes and regulations asserted by the Nation in this case.