Patchak v. Kempthorne
109 F. Supp. 3d 152
D.D.C.2015Background
- Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians was federally acknowledged in 1998 and sought trust acquisition of a 147-acre Bradley Tract in Michigan to develop a casino.
- The Department of the Interior took the Bradley Tract into trust in 2005; the Tribe later opened Gun Lake Casino (2011).
- David Patchak, a neighboring landowner, sued (2008) under the APA challenging the Secretary's authority to take the land into trust; the case saw standing litigation up to the Supreme Court and was remanded for merits review.
- Congress enacted the Gun Lake Trust Land Reaffirmation Act (2014), which (a) ratified the Secretary's 2005 trust decision and (b) barred federal court actions "relating to" the specified land and required dismissal of pending suits.
- On remand the district court held the Act mooted Patchak's APA claim (divesting jurisdiction), rejected Patchak's constitutional challenges (separation of powers, Petition Clause, due process, bill of attainder), granted summary judgment to the Intervenor-Defendant (Tribe), and dismissed the action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Gun Lake Act divests the court of jurisdiction and moot's Patchak's APA claim | Patchak: Congress cannot simply moot the suit to avoid judicial review of the Secretary's action | Gov/Tribe: The Act unambiguously withdraws jurisdiction over claims "relating to" the specified land and thus moots the case | The Act removes the court's jurisdiction; the court applies the law in effect and declines to reach the APA merits |
| Separation of powers / Klein challenge (Congress prescribing outcome) | Patchak: §2(b) and §2(a) coerce the judiciary by mandating dismissal and imposing Congress's interpretation of the IRA | Gov/Tribe: Congress may limit inferior courts' jurisdiction and may ratify agency actions without directing particular factual findings | Court: No Klein violation — jurisdictional withdrawal is permissible; §2(a) can be read as ratification of agency action, not a judicial rule of decision |
| First Amendment right to petition | Patchak: §2(b) burdens his right by barring access to federal courts for redress | Gov/Tribe: Petition right does not guarantee access to every forum; administrative avenues remain open | Court: No First Amendment violation — Congress may limit forums; Patchak may still petition agencies and petition clause does not guarantee a judicial forum |
| Fifth Amendment due process | Patchak: Dismissal denies his right to litigate and thus due process | Gov/Tribe: No cognizable vested property interest in an unadjudicated cause of action; Congress may limit jurisdiction | Court: No due process violation — causes of action are not protected property interests absent final judgment; even if one existed, Congress acting legislatively provides process |
| Bill of Attainder | Patchak: Act targets his suit and thus imposes legislative punishment without trial | Gov/Tribe: The Act is not punitive; it serves nonpunitive ends (legal certainty, economic development) | Court: Not a bill of attainder — statute is not punitive in the historical sense and advances legitimate nonpunitive purposes |
Key Cases Cited
- Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535 (1974) (IRA's purpose to promote tribal self-government and economic well-being)
- Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244 (1994) (courts apply law in effect when they render judgment)
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83 (1998) (federal courts may not reach merits without jurisdiction)
- Carcieri v. Salazar, 555 U.S. 379 (2009) (interpretation of IRA's "now" language; date-of-enactment focus)
- Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., 514 U.S. 211 (1995) (Congress may change substantive law affecting pending cases without violating Klein in some contexts)
- United States v. Klein, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 128 (1871) (limits on Congress prescribing rules of decision for pending cases)
- Robertson v. Seattle Audubon Soc'y, 503 U.S. 429 (1992) (statute that amends applicable law rather than directing factual findings is permissible)
- Nat'l Coalition to Save Our Mall v. Norton, 269 F.3d 1092 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (upholding jurisdiction-stripping statute against Klein challenge)
- McDonald v. Smith, 472 U.S. 479 (1985) (Petition Clause is part of First Amendment protections)
- Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361 (1989) (presumption of constitutionality for statutes; heavy burden on challengers)