Patchak v. Zinke, 583 U.S. 244,913 (2018), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld the Gun Lake Trust Land Reaffirmation Act, which precludes federal courts from hearing lawsuits involving a particular parcel of land., 138 S. Ct. 897 (2018). This article incorporates public domain material from this U.S government document. Although six justices agreed that the Gun Lake Act was constitutional, they could not agree on why. In an opinion issued by Justice Thomas, a plurality of the Court read the statute to strip federal courts of jurisdiction over cases involving the property and held that this did not violate Article Three of the United States Constitution. In contrast, Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor, both of whom concurred in the judgment, upheld the Act as a restoration of the government's sovereign immunity. Chief Justice Roberts, writing for himself and Justices Kennedy and Gorsuch, dissented on the ground that the statute intruded on the judicial power, in violation of Article III.
Background Legal backdrop The Supreme Court has repeatedly struggled to reconcile Congress's power to alter the metes and bounds of federal court jurisdiction with the judicial power, which Article III vests in the courts alone.See Sarah Herman Peck, Cong. Research Serv., R44967, Congress's Power over Courts: Jurisdiction Stripping and the Rule of Klein (2018),. Patchak v. Zinke implicated two of these cases in particular:
United States v. Klein
United States v. Klein, 13 Wall. 128 (1872): During the Civil War, the Treasury Department seized abandoned or captured property in Confederate territory to support the Union.Abandoned Property Collection Act, ch. 120, 12 Stat. 820 (1863). After the War, President Johnson declared that Southerners could receive the proceeds of their confiscated property after receiving a presidential pardon and swearing an oath of loyalty to the United States.. Subsequently, in United States v. Padelford, the Supreme Court held that a pardon rendered such claimants "innocent in law as though he had never participated" in the War and, therefore, was entitled to the proceeds. (internal quotation marks omitted). In response, Congress enacted a law providing that a presidential pardon in a suit brought for the proceeds of abandoned or captured property shall be treated as "conclusive evidence" of disloyalty, and, upon such proof, "the jurisdiction of the court in the case shall cease, and the court shall forthwith dismiss the suit of such claimant."Klein, 80 U.S. at 133.
The Court struck down the statute. The Court held that, because Congress "prescribe[d] a rule for the decision of a cause in a particular way", it had "passed the limit which separates the legislative from the judicial power."Klein, 80 U.S. at 147. But the Court also suggested that the law was unconstitutional because it "impair[ed] the effect of a pardon, and thus infring[ed] the constitutional power of the Executive." Thus, while its outcome is clear, the precise holding of Klein has generated much debate.See e.g., , 136 S. Ct. 1310, 1323 n.18 (2016) (acknowledging that Klein has been described as "a deeply puzzling decision" (citation omitted)); Gordon G. Young, Congressional Regulation of Federal Courts’ Jurisdiction & Processes: United States v. Klein Revisited, 1981 Wis. L. Rev. 1189, 1195 (1981) ("[T]he Klein opinion combines the clear with the delphic.").
Bank Markazi v. Peterson
Bank Markazi v. Peterson, 136 S.Ct. 1310 (2016): Victims and estate representatives sued Iran for its role in the 1983 bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut, Lebanon under 28 U.S.C. § 1605A, which provides "money damages... against a foreign state for personal injury or death that was caused by" acts of terrorism., 136 S. Ct. 1310, 1317 (2016) (quoting ). The plaintiffs prevailed in their lawsuit and sought to enforce the judgment against the Central Bank of Iran, known as "Bank Markazi", under the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act, which authorizes the enforcement of judgments obtained under § 1605A against "blocked assets."Bank Markazi, 136 S. Ct. at 1318 (quoting ); see also Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002, (2002). While the litigation was pending, Congress enacted the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act of 2012 (codified at 22 U.S.C. § 8772).Bank Markazi, 136 S. Ct. at 1318 (citing ); see also Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act of 2012, (2012). That statute referenced the litigation by docket number and authorized the Bank's assets to be seized to enforce a judgment pursuant to § 1605A if the court concluded the assets were (1) held in the United States; (2) a "blocked asset"; (3) an asset of Iran; and (4) owned only by Iran..
Relying on Klein, Bank Markazi argued § 8772 violated Article III by "effectively dictat[ing] specific factual findings in connection with a specific litigation—invading the province of the courts."Bank Markazi, 136 S. Ct. at 1322 (internal quotation marks omitted). The Supreme Court disagreed. The Court upheld § 8772 on the logic that Congress "does not impinge on judicial power when it directs courts to apply a new legal standard to undisputed facts."Bank Markazi, 136 S. Ct. at 1325. Here, the statute "provides a new standard clarifying that, if Iran owns certain assets, the victims of Iran-sponsored terrorist attacks will be permitted to execute against those assets."Bank Markazi, 136 S. Ct. at 1326. In upholding the statute, however, the Court cautioned that an Act which merely said "in Smith v. Jones, Smith wins" would violate Article III because it "fails to supply any new legal standard."
Chief Justice Roberts, joined by Justice Sotomayor, dissented, arguing Congress unconstitutionally invaded the judicial power by "enacting a bespoke statute tailored to this case that resolves the parties’ specific legal disputes to guarantee respondents victory."Bank Markazi, 136 S. Ct. at 1330 (Roberts, C.J., dissenting).
Facts and Procedural History
The Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians (also known as the Gun Lake Tribe) live in what is today southwestern Michigan.Patchak, 138 S. Ct. at 903. Despite having been recognized by the federal government in numerous treaties during the 1800s,See, e.g., The Treaty of Greenville, Aug. 3, 1795, 7 Stat. 49; Treaty with the Ottawa, etc., U.S.-Ottawa, Chippewa, and Potawatomi Nations of Indians, Aug. 29, 1821, 7 Stat. 218. the Secretary of the Interior did not formally recognize the Band until 1999.Final Determination to Acknowledge the Match-e-be-nash-she-wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians of Michigan, (1998). Once the Band received recognition, it sought to obtain land to reaffirm its sovereign status. The Tribe identified a 147-acre parcel of land in Wayland Township, Michigan (the Bradley Property) and asked the Secretary of the Interior to take the land into trust under the Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) (codified at 25 U.S.C. § 465). The Secretary agreed in 2005, and the Department of Interior published a notice in the Federal Register announcing the Secretary's intent to take the Bradley Property into trust.Notice of Determination, (2005).
In response, the Michigan Gambling Opposition sued to stop the Secretary. The United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the lawsuit, and the D.C. Circuit affirmed. In 2009, the Secretary took the land into trust. Before the Secretary could do so, however, David Patchak, a resident of Wayland Township, filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, challenging the Secretary's action under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (codified at 5 U.S.C. § 500 et seq.) and the IRA. Specifically, he contended the Secretary lacked authority to take the Bradley Property into trust because the IRA empowers the Secretary to take land into trust only for tribes who were recognized when that law was enacted in 1934, but the Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish were not federally recognized until 1999. While Patchak's suit was pending, the Supreme Court embraced this interpretation of the IRA in Carcieri v. Salazar..
The District Court dismissed Patchak's claims, concluding he lacked standing to vindicate violations of the IRA.Patchak, 646 F. Supp. 2d at 76. The D.C. Circuit reversed and also held that the government had waived its sovereign immunity through the APA, which permits claims for prospective, nonmonetary relief. The Supreme Court granted certiorari on both issues.Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians v. Patchak, SCOTUSblog, https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/match-e-be-nash-she-wish-band-of-pottawatomi-indians-v-patchak/ (last visited May 3, 2019). In 2012, the Court affirmed the D.C. Circuit in Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians v. Patchak, holding that Patchak's lawsuit could proceed..
In September 2014, while Patchak's case was again pending before the district court, Congress enacted the Gun Lake Act.Gun Lake Trust and Reaffirmation Act, (2014). That law contained two sections:
Section 2(a) provides: "The land taken into trust by the United States for the benefit of the Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians and described in the final Notice of Determination of the Department of the Interior (70 Fed. Reg. 25596 (May 13, 2005)) is reaffirmed as trust land, and the actions of the Secretary of the Interior in taking that land into trust are ratified and confirmed." Section 2(b) provides: "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."
The legislative history of the Act makes clear that Congress acted with the express purpose of "void[ing] a pending lawsuit challenging the lawfullness of the Secretary's original action to acquire the Bradley Property", even mentioning David Patchak by name.H. Rep. No. 113-590, at 2 (2014).
Although Patchak argued the Act was unconstitutional, the district court dismissed his case on the ground that it "lack[ed] jurisdiction to reach the merits of plaintiff's claim." The D.C. Circuit affirmed the District Court's ruling because, "if an action relates to the Bradley Property, it must promptly be dismissed."
The Supreme Court granted certiorari on May 1, 2017.Patchak v. Zinke, SCOTUSblog, https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/patchak-v-jewell/ (last visited May 3, 2019).
Relevant Constitutional Provisions Section 1, Article III of the U.S. Constitution provides: "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."U.S. Const. Art. III, § 1.
Supreme Court
Question Presented Does a statute violate the Constitution's separation-of-powers principles if it directs the federal courts to dismiss any pending lawsuit against a particular property but does not amend substantive or procedural laws?
Justice Thomas' plurality opinion