David Patchak v. Sally Jewell
828 F.3d 995
D.C. Cir.2016Background
- Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band (Gun Lake Tribe) obtained federal recognition (1999) and the Department of the Interior placed the Bradley Property into trust (Notice of Determination, 2005); the Tribe built and now operates Gun Lake Casino.
- David Patchak, a nearby resident, sued under the Administrative Procedure Act in 2008 challenging the Secretary’s authority under the Indian Reorganization Act to take the Bradley Property into trust, alleging local harms from the casino.
- Lower courts initially dismissed for lack of prudential standing; the D.C. Circuit and then the Supreme Court reversed/held Patchak had prudential standing (Match‑E‑Be‑Nash‑She‑Wish Band v. Patchak).
- After remand, DOI issued an Amended Notice of Decision reaffirming authority; Congress enacted the Gun Lake Trust Land Reaffirmation Act (Gun Lake Act, 2014), which ratified the DOI decision and barred federal-court actions “relating to” the Bradley Property.
- The District Court dismissed Patchak’s case on jurisdictional grounds and rejected his constitutional challenges to the Gun Lake Act; Patchak appeals the dismissal and the denial of his motion to strike a supplement to the administrative record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Congress violated Article III by stripping jurisdiction and effectively directing the result of pending litigation | Patchak: Act impermissibly encroaches on judicial power by dictating outcome without supplying new law | Gov/Tribe: Act changed the law by ratifying DOI decision and withdrawing jurisdiction over actions relating to the land | Held: No Article III violation; Act supplied a new legal standard (dismiss actions relating to the land) and is within Congress’s power |
| Whether the Gun Lake Act abridges the First Amendment petition right by denying federal-court access | Patchak: Act forecloses his right to petition courts for redress | Gov/Tribe: Right of access is subject to congressional control over lower-court jurisdiction; other forums remain | Held: No violation; Congress may limit inferior‑court jurisdiction and does not eliminate all petitioning avenues |
| Whether the Act violates Fifth Amendment due process by depriving Patchak of his cause of action without process | Patchak: Cause of action is protected property; legislative removal denies due process | Gov/Tribe: Legislature may change or eliminate causes of action; legislative process provides required process | Held: No due-process violation; legislative change to pending suit provides the process due |
| Whether the Act is an unconstitutional Bill of Attainder targeting Patchak | Patchak: Statute singled him out and punished him by barring his suit | Gov/Tribe: Act is nonpunitive, aims to provide legal certainty for the Tribe and land | Held: Not a bill of attainder; fails the punishment element and serves legitimate nonpunitive purposes |
| Whether the District Court abused its discretion by denying motion to strike the supplemented administrative record | Patchak: Supplement (Amended Notice) improperly added to record | Gov/Tribe: District Court acted within discretion, relied on supplement only to describe changed legal landscape | Held: No abuse of discretion; denial proper given dismissal for lack of jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803) (Judiciary’s duty to say what the law is)
- Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., 514 U.S. 211 (1995) (limits on Congress directing judicial outcomes)
- United States v. Klein, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 128 (1871) (Congress may not prescribe rules of decision for courts)
- Robertson v. Seattle Audubon Soc., 503 U.S. 429 (1992) (legislation may change legal standards applicable to pending cases)
- Bank Markazi v. Peterson, 136 S. Ct. 1310 (2016) (Congress can change law affecting pending litigation by providing new substantive standards)
- Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S. 422 (1982) (a cause of action is a species of property for due process analysis)
- Nat’l Coal. to Save Our Mall v. Norton, 269 F.3d 1092 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (upholding congressional withdrawal of jurisdiction over specific matters)
- Match‑E‑Be‑Nash‑She‑Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians v. Patchak, 132 S. Ct. 2199 (2012) (Supreme Court: Patchak had prudential standing)