Everything you need to know about ranked-choice voting in one spot. Click to learn more!

Patchak v. Zinke

From Ballotpedia
Revision as of 19:51, 31 August 2022 by Kate Carsella (contribs) (Text replacement - "was a case" to "is a case")
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Supreme Court of the United States
Patchak v. Zinke
Term: 2017
Important Dates
Argument: November 7, 2017
Decided: February 27, 2018
Outcome
D.C. Circuit affirmed
Vote
6 - 3 to affirm
Plurality
Clarence Thomas • Stephen Breyer • Samuel Alito • Elena Kagan
Concurring
Stephen Breyer • Ruth Bader Ginsburg • Sonia Sotomayor
Dissenting
Chief Justice John G. Roberts • Anthony Kennedy • Neil Gorsuch


Patchak v. Zinke is a case argued during the October 2017 term of the U.S. Supreme Court. Argument in the case was held on November 7, 2017. The case came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

This case presented a question of Congress' authority to modify federal courts' jurisdiction. James Marino, a California-based attorney writing in Law 360, a legal blog, wrote that the Patchak case was "probably one of the more important cases ... since Marbury v. Madison defined the parameters of the three branches of our government over 210 years ago."[1]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The case: In accordance with provisions of the Gun Lake Act, a federal court promptly dismissed a pending lawsuit filed by David Patchak challenging the authority of the U.S. Department of the Interior to place in trust a land grant known as the Bradley Property for the Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians. Patchak appealed the dismissal, challenging the authority of Congress to alter the jurisdiction of federal courts without providing a new legal standard, through legislation, for courts to apply.
  • The issue: Did Congress violate constitutional separation of powers principles in requiring federal courts to promptly dismiss legal actions related to the Bradley Property without amending underlying substantive or procedural laws?
  • The outcome: The Supreme Court affirmed the District of Columbia Circuit, 6 - 3.


    • In brief: In 2001, the Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians petitioned the Bureau of Indian Affairs for a tract of land known as the Bradley Property, located near Wayland Township, Michigan, to be placed in trust. The Tribe sought to use the land to build and to operate a gaming and entertainment facility. David Patchak, the petitioner, filed a lawsuit alleging the U.S. Department of the Interior lacked the authority to place the land in trust. The U.S. Supreme Court later held that Patchak had standing to bring the lawsuit in court. Subsequent to that decision, Congress passed, and President Barack Obama (D) signed, the Gun Lake Act, which required that any legal action related to the Bradley Property be promptly dismissed in federal court. Patchak's lawsuit was the only legal action affected by the legislation. Patchak appealed, arguing that Congress violated constitutional provisions for separation of powers in altering federal courts' jurisdiction by not providing a new legal standard for courts to apply, in violation of Article III. A federal district court and a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit rejected Patchak's claims. Argument in the case was held on November 7, 2017. The Supreme Court affirmed the District of Columbia Circuit's decision on February 27, 2018.[2]

    You can review the lower court's opinion here.[3]

    Background

    In 2001, the Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians (hereafter, Tribe) petitioned the Bureau of Indian Affairs (hereafter, BIA) for a tract of land referred to in court documents as the Bradley Property, near Wayland Township, Michigan. The Tribe sought to use the land to build and to operate a gaming and entertainment facility. In 2005, the BIA approved the petition. In 2011, the Gun Lake Casino opened.[3]

    David Patchak lived near the Bradley Property. In 2008, Patchak filed a lawsuit against the secretary of the Interior and the assistant secretary for the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Patchak alleged at that time that the construction and operation of a casino in his community would cause him irreparable injury. Patchak claimed, among other things, the casino would "irreversibly change the rural character of the area, increase traffic and pollution, and divert local resources away from existing residents." As the Tribe was not formally recognized when the Indian Reorganization Act (hereafter, IRA) was enacted in June 1934, Patchak argued that the secretary lacked the authority to put the Bradley Property into trust for the Tribe. The IRA gave the U.S. Department of the Interior the authority to take title to the Bradley Property and to place the property in trust for the Tribe.[3]

    A federal district court dismissed Patchak's suit because the court agreed with both the Tribe and the United States that "Patchak lacked prudential standing because his interest in the Bradley Property was 'fundamentally at odds with the purpose of the IRA' and he therefore did not fall within the IRA’s 'zone of interests.'" The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed, holding that Patchak did have standing to bring the lawsuit. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the D.C. Circuit's opinion. The case was remanded to the district court for additional proceedings.[3]

    In the interim period between the Supreme Court's decision and proceedings in district court, two key developments occurred. First, "the Department of the Interior issued an Amended Notice of Decision approving an application the Tribe had submitted for two other parcels of land it sought to acquire. As part of this Notice of Decision, the Secretary expressly considered, and confirmed, its authority to take land into trust for the benefit of the Gun Lake Tribe."[3]

    Second, in September of 2014, Congress passed, and President Barack Obama (D) signed into law, the Gun Lake Trust Land Reaffirmation Act (hereafter, Gun Lake Act). The Gun Lake Act, which was introduced by Michigan Senator Debbie Stabenow (D), reaffirmed the land as held in trust for the Tribe. The Gun Lake Act also secured the potential for future land to be placed in trust for the Tribe's benefit. Notably, the Gun Lake Act contained the following provision,[3]

    “

    (b) NO CLAIMS.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an action (including an action pending in a Federal court as of the date of enactment of this Act) relating to the land described in subsection (a) shall not be filed or maintained in a Federal court and shall be promptly dismissed.[4]

    		”

    The effect of this provision was that any action filed in a federal court related to the Bradley Property was required to be promptly dismissed. Adhering to this provision, the district court dismissed Patchak's lawsuit on remand in 2015. Patchak appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

    A three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit composed of Judges Cornelia T. L. Pillard, Judith Rogers, and Robert Leon Wilkins heard the appeal. In his opinion for a unanimous panel, Judge Wilkins affirmed the district court's dismissal. Judge Wilkins' rejected Patchak's argument that Congress violated the constitutional separation of powers. Specifically, Patchak alleged that, in passing the Gun Lake Act, Congress required federal courts to exercise their judicial authority in a manner that Article III prohibited. Patchak claimed that in order to change jurisdiction in his case, or in any pending case, Congress was required to provide new law and that the Gun Lake Act "did not provide any new legal standard to apply, but rather impermissibly directed the result of his lawsuit under pre-existing law." Judge Wilkins rejected this view, holding that the Gun Lake Act amended the substantive law through the new legal standard obligating federal courts to promptly dismiss any action relating to the Bradley Property.

    The court further rejected claims that the Gun Lake Act violated Patchak's First Amendment rights to petition, his Fifth Amendment rights against uncompensated takings of private land for public use, or that the Gun Lake Act constituted an unconstitutional bill of attainder.

    Petitioner's challenge

    David Patchak, the petitioner, challenged the holding of the D.C. Circuit. Patchak argued that Congress violated separation of powers principles in requiring federal courts to promptly dismiss actions related to the Bradley Property without amending underlying substantive or procedural laws.

    Certiorari granted

    On October 11, 2016, David Patchak, the petitioner, initiated proceedings in the Supreme Court of the United States in filing a petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The U.S. Supreme Court granted Patchak's certiorari request on May 1, 2017, limiting argument to question 1 of the petition. Argument in the case was held on November 7, 2017.[5]

    Question presented

    Question presented:

    " Does a statute directing the federal courts to 'promptly dismiss' a pending lawsuit following substantive determinations by the courts (including this Court's determination that the 'suit may proceed')-without amending underlying substantive or procedural laws-violate the Constitution’s separation of powers principles?"[5]

    Audio

    • Audio of oral argument:[6]



    Transcript

    • Transcript of oral argument:[7]

    Outcome

    Decision

    The Supreme Court affirmed the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in a 6 - 3 ruling.[2]

    Plurality opinion

    Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the plurality opinion of the court, joined by Justices Stephen Breyer, Samuel Alito, and Elena Kagan. The plurality opinion is the opinion joined by the highest number of justices in cases where no opinion is joined by a majority of the justices.[2]

    Thomas affirmed the District of Columbia Circuit, concluding that the challenged section of the Gun Lake Act did not violate the U.S. Constitution and that Congress permissibly exercised its legislative power in creating the Act:

    “ To distinguish between permissible exercises of the legislative power and impermissible infringements of the

    judicial power, this Court’s precedents establish the following rule: Congress violates Article III when it compels findings or results under old law. But Congress does not violate Article III when it changes the law...Section 2(b) changes the law. Specifically, it strips federal courts of jurisdiction over actions 'relating to' the Bradley Property. Before the Gun Lake Act, federal courts had jurisdiction to hear these actions. Now they do not. This kind of legal change is well within Congress’ authority and does not violate Article III.[2][8][4]

    		”

    Thomas acknowledged that Section 2(b) was passed in response to the court's earlier ruling in this case. But, he continued, neither the fact that Congress responded to a particular case nor the fact that the band lobbied Congress for the change affected the court's decision:

    “ But the question in this case is '[n]ot favoritism, nor even corruption, but power.' Under this Court’s precedents, Congress has the power to apply newly enacted, outcome-altering legislation in pending civil cases, even when the legislation 'govern[s] one or a very small number of specific subjects.' For example, this Court has upheld narrow statutes that identified specific cases by caption and docket number in their text...If these targeted statutes did not cross the line from legislative to judicial power, then §2(b) does not either.[2][9][4] ”

    Concurring opinion by Justice Breyer

    Justice Breyer wrote a separate concurring opinion in addition to joining Justice Thomas' opinion. Breyer clarified his reasoning for joining the plurality's opinion:

    “ The petitioner does not argue that Congress acted unconstitutionally by ratifying the Secretary’s actions and

    the land’s trust status, and I am aware of no substantial argument to that effect. This case is consequently unlike United States v. Klein, where this Court held unconstitutional a congressional effort to use its jurisdictional authority to reach a result (involving the pardon power) that it could not constitutionally reach directly. And the plurality, in today’s opinion, carefully distinguishes from the case before us other circumstances where Congress’ use of its jurisdictional power could prove constitutionally objectionable. Here Congress has used its jurisdictional power to supplement, without altering, action that no one has challenged as unconstitutional. Under these circumstances, I find its use of that power unobjectionable.[2][10][4]

    		”

    Concurring opinion by Justice Ginsburg

    Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg concurred in the judgment of the court but wrote separately, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Ginsburg wrote that she believed the case turned on Congress' ability to waive and reinstate sovereign immunity:

    “ What Congress grants, it may retract. That is undoubtedly true of the Legislature’s authority to forgo or retain

    the Government’s sovereign immunity from suit. The Court need venture no further to decide this case. Just as it is Congress’ prerogative to consent to suit, so too is it within Congress’ authority to withdraw consent once given. Retraction of consent to be sued (effectively restoration of immunity) is just what Congress achieved when it directed in the Gun Lake Act: 'Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an action . . . relating to the [Bradley Property],' including any pending action, 'shall not be . . . maintained in a Federal Court and shall be promptly dismissed.' Gun Lake Trust Land Reaffirmation Act, Pub. L. 113–179, §2(b), 128 Stat. 1913.[2][11][4]

    		”

    Concurring opinion by Justice Sotomayor

    Justice Sonia Sotomayor concurred in the judgment of the court but wrote separately, in addition to joining Justice Ginsburg's concurring opinion. Sotomayor clarified her reasoning for concurring rather than dissenting in the judgment:

    “ I agree with the dissent that Congress may not achieve through jurisdiction stripping what it cannot permissibly

    achieve outright, namely, directing entry of judgment for a particular party. I also agree that an Act that merely deprives federal courts of jurisdiction over a single proceeding is not enough to be considered a change in the law and that any statute that portends to do so should be viewed with great skepticism. I differ with the dissent’s ultimate conclusion only because...§2(b) of the Gun Lake Act is most naturally read as having restored the Federal Government’s sovereign immunity from Patchak’s suit challenging the trust status of the Bradley Property. That conclusion avoids the separation-of-powers concerns raised here about jurisdiction stripping. On this basis alone, I would affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.[2][12][4]

    		”

    Dissenting opinion by Chief Justice Roberts

    Chief Justice John Roberts dissented from the court's judgment, joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy and Neil Gorsuch. Roberts believed that Congress had exceeded its authority and infringed on the authority of the judiciary in passing the challenged statute because he believed the statute "dictates the disposition of a single pending case." He continued, "Contrary to the plurality, I would not cede unqualified authority to the Legislature to decide the outcome of such a case. Article III of the Constitution vests that responsibility in the Judiciary alone."[2]

    “ Over and over, the plurality intones that §2(b) does not impinge on the judicial power because the provision

    'changes the law.' But all that §2(b) does is deprive the court of jurisdiction in a single proceeding. If that is sufficient to change the law, the plurality’s rule 'provides no limiting principle' on Congress’s ability to assume the role of judge and decide the outcome of pending cases...Indeed, although the stakes of this particular dispute may seem insignificant, the principle that the plurality would enshrine is of historic consequence. In no uncertain terms, the plurality disavows any limitations on Congress’s power to determine judicial results, conferring on the Legislature a colonial-era authority to pick winners and losers in pending litigation as it pleases.[2][13][4]

    		”

    Roberts also disagreed with Ginsburg's reasoning in her concurring opinion. He wrote, "To reinstate sovereign immunity after it has been waived, Congress must express 'an unambiguous intention to withdraw' a remedy. Congress has not made that showing here."[2]

    The opinions

    See also

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ Law 360, "Patchak v. Zinke Stresses Need For Separation Of Powers," August 28, 2017
    2. ↑ 2.00 2.01 2.02 2.03 2.04 2.05 2.06 2.07 2.08 2.09 2.10 United States Supreme Court, Patchak v. Zinke, February 27, 2018
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, David Patchak v. Sally Jewell et al., July 15, 2016
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 Supreme Court of the United States, Patchak v. Zinke, May 1, 2017
    6. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Patchak v. Zinke, argued November 7, 2017
    7. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Patchak v. Zinke, argued November 7, 2017
    8. ↑ Internal citations and quotations omitted.
    9. ↑ Internal citations and quotations omitted.
    10. ↑ Internal citations and quotations omitted.
    11. ↑ Internal citations and quotations omitted.
    12. ↑ Internal citations and quotations omitted.
    13. ↑ Internal citations and quotations omitted.
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Patchak_v._Zinke&oldid=8891853"