Patchak v. Zinke
Issues
Does a statute directing the federal courts to “promptly dismiss” a pending lawsuit, after a determination by the Supreme Court that the suit may proceed, violate the Constitution’s separation of powers principles when it does not change the substantive law on which the original proceeding was based?
The Supreme Court will decide whether a statute directing the federal courts to promptly dismiss a pending lawsuit, without amending the underlying law on which the lawsuit was brought, violates the Constitution’s separation of powers principles. Petitioner David Patchak argues that the Gun Lake Act, which removes subject-matter jurisdiction from any federal court to hear his case, is unconstitutional because it determines the outcome of pending litigation without changing the substantive law on which his lawsuit was first brought, specifically sovereign immunity law. Patchak believes that the statute grants the Legislature too much power over judicial matters. Respondents the Secretary of the Interior, et al. and the Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians (the “Gun Lake Tribe”) argue that, because the statute merely dictates the subject-matter jurisdiction of the federal courts, it is well within Congress’ constitutional powers. The Secretary and the Gun Lake Tribe maintain that if statutes like the Gun Lake Act are unconstitutional, the Judiciary will have too much power because courts will be able to determine their own jurisdiction, limited only by their own discretion. This case will provide clarity on the line of cases regarding Congress’ ability to affect pending litigation and govern the specificity with which Congress will need to draft jurisdictional statutes in the future.
Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties
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?
In 2005, the Bureau of Indian Affairs approved an application by the Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians (the “Gun Lake Tribe”) for a tract of land called the Bradley Property, located in Wayland Township, Michigan, to be put into trust under the Indian Reorganization Act (“IRA”). See Patchak v. Jewel, 828 F.3d 995, 3 (D.C. Cir. 2016).
Written by
Edited by
The authors would like to thank Professor Michael Dorf for his insights into this case.
Additional Resources
- Suzette Brewer, SCOTUS to Hear Gun Lake Trust Land Case, Indian Country Today (September 2, 2017).
- Todd Ruger, Supreme Court to Explore Power of Congress to Affect Lawsuits, Roll Call (May 1, 2017).