Tag Archives: 09-5324

Supreme Court Gives D.C. Circuit High Marks for October 2011 Term

The Supreme Court affirmed the D.C. Circuit in three out of the four cases it heard during the term that ended last Thursday. Two of the three opinions the high court affirmed were authored by Judge Ginsburg, who took senior status in October.   Continue reading

Advertisements

Cert Petitions Filed in Indian Land Case

Marissa Miller at SCOTUSblog flagged as “petitions of the day” two cert petitions seeking review of Patchak v. Salazar, No. 09-5324, 632 F.3d 702 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 21, 2011) (Randolph, S.J., joined by Henderson & Griffith, JJ.). Both were filed August 25, 2011.

Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians v. Patchak, No. 11-246 (S. Ct.)

Questions 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 plaintiffs 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 Eighfh 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.

Salazar v. Patchak, No. 11-247 (S. Ct.)

Questions Presented:

1. Whether 5 U.S.C. 702 waives the sovereign immunity of the United States from a suit challenging its title to lands that it holds in trust for an Indian Tribe.

2. Whether a private individual who alleges injuries resulting from the. operation of a gaming facility on Indian trust land has prudential standing to challenge the decision of the Secretary of the Interior to take title to that land in trust, on the ground that the decision was not authorized by the Indian Reorganization Act, ch. 576, 48 Stat. 984.

Update: