Term: 2011
Docket: 11-246
Match-e-be-nash-she-wish Band Of Pottawatomi Indians v. Patchak
- Pro
11-246 MATCH-E-BE-NASH-SHE-WISH BAND V. PATCHAK DECISION BELOW: 632 F.3d 702 CONSOLIDATED WITH 11-247 FOR ONE HOUR ORAL ARGUMENT. CERT. GRANTED 12/12/2011 QUESTION PRESENTED: I. Whether the Quiet Title Act and its reservation of the United States' sovereign immunity in suits involving "trust or restricted Indian lands" apply to all suits concerning land in which the United States "claims an interest," 28 U.S.C. § 2409a(a), as the Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits have held, or whether they apply only when the plaintiff claims title to the land, as the D.C. Circuit held. II. Whether prudential standing to sue under federal law can be based on either (i) the plaintiff’s ability to "police" an agency's compliance with the law, as held by the D.C. Circuit but rejected by the Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Circuits, or (ii) interests protected by a different federal statute than the one on which suit is based, as held by the D.C. Circuit but rejected by the Federal Circuit. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 09-5324
The U.S. Supreme Court case Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians v. Patchak, 2011, revolved around a dispute over land taken into trust by the Secretary of the Interior for use by the Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band (also known as Gun Lake Tribe) to build a casino in Michigan. David Patchak, who lived nearby, sued claiming that this decision would increase crime and lower property values in his area. The main issue was whether Patchak had standing to sue under Administrative Procedure Act (APA), and if sovereign immunity applied due to Quiet Title Act's exceptions which exclude Indian lands from lawsuits challenging title ownership. In an 8–1 decision delivered by Justice Kagan, the court held that Patchak did have prudential standing under APA because his interests were relevant to Congress' purposes in enacting Indian Reorganization Act; he could challenge government’s acquisition on grounds it violated statute governing such acquisitions; and United States waived its sovereign immunity from suit via APA.
In the dissenting opinion for MATCH-E-BE-NASH-SHE-WISH BAND OF POTTAWATOMI INDIANS v. PATCHAK, Justice Sotomayor argued that Patchak lacked prudential standing to challenge the Secretary of Interior's decision to take land into trust for a tribe. She contended that his interests were not within the zone of interests protected by the Indian Reorganization Act (IRA). The IRA was designed to benefit tribes and their members, not neighboring property owners like Patchak. Furthermore, she disagreed with majority’s view on sovereign immunity issue under Administrative Procedure Act (APA), asserting that Congress intended Quiet Title Act as sole remedy against United States in disputes over title ownership which should have barred Patchak’s suit. Lastly, she expressed concern about potential negative impacts on tribal self-determination and economic development due to this ruling allowing suits challenging government-held lands long after they are acquired.
