|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|16-498||D.C. Cir.||Nov 7, 2017||Feb 27, 2018||6-3||Thomas||OT 2017|
Holding: David Patchak filed suit challenging the authority of the secretary of the Interior Department to take into trust a property (Bradley Property) on which Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians wished to build a casino. In an earlier appeal in the case, the Supreme Court held that the secretary lacked sovereign immunity and that Patchak had standing, and it remanded the case for further proceedings. Congress subsequently enacted the Gun Lake Act, which “reaffirmed as trust land” the Bradley Property, Section 2(a), and provided that “an action . . . relating to [that] land shall not be filed or maintained in a Federal court and shall be promptly dismissed,” Section 2(b). The court of appeals properly affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Patchak’s lawsuit pursuant to that statute.
Judgment: Affirmed, 6-3, in an opinion by Justice Thomas on February 27, 2018. Justice Thomas, joined by Justices Breyer, Alito and Kagan, concluded that Section 2(b) of the Gun Lake Act does not violate Article III of the Constitution. Justice Breyer filed a concurring opinion. Justice Ginsburg filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Justice Sotomayor joined, concluding that Congress acted effectively to displace the Administrative Procedure Act’s waiver of immunity for suits against the United States — which enabled Patchak to launch this litigation — with a contrary command applicable to the Bradley Property. Justice Sotomayor filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, concluding that that Section 2(b) of the Gun Lake Act is most naturally read as having restored the Federal Government’s sovereign immunity from Patchak’s suit challenging the trust status of the Bradley Property. Chief Justice Roberts filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Kennedy and Gorsuch joined.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Oct 11 2016||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 14, 2016)|
|Nov 11 2016||Brief of respondent Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish band of Pottawatomi Indians in opposition filed.|
|Nov 14 2016||Waiver of right of respondent Sally Jewel, Secretary of the Interior, et al. to respond filed.|
|Nov 14 2016||Motion for leave to file amici brief filed by Federal Courts Scholars.|
|Nov 28 2016||Opposition of intervenor-respondent Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians, to motion for leave to file amicus curiae brief of Federal Courts Scholars filed.|
|Nov 30 2016||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 6, 2017.|
|Dec 15 2016||Response Requested. (Due January 17, 2017)|
|Jan 12 2017||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including February 16, 2017.|
|Feb 15 2017||Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including March 20, 2017.|
|Mar 20 2017||Brief of Federal Respondents in opposition filed.|
|Apr 03 2017||Reply of petitioner David Patchak filed.|
|Apr 05 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 21, 2017.|
|Apr 24 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 28, 2017.|
|May 01 2017||Motion for leave to file amici brief filed by Federal Courts Scholars GRANTED.|
|May 01 2017||Petition GRANTED limited to Question 1 presented by the petition.|
|May 16 2017||The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including July 13, 2017.|
|May 16 2017||The time to file respondents' briefs on the merits is extended to and including September 11, 2017.|
|Jul 12 2017||Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed)|
|Jul 12 2017||Brief of petitioner David Patchak filed.|
|Jul 19 2017||Brief amici curiae of Federal Courts Scholars filed.|
|Aug 31 2017||SET FOR ARGUMENT on Tuesday, November 7, 2017|
|Sep 07 2017||CIRCULATED|
|Sep 11 2017||Brief of respondent Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians filed. (Distributed)|
|Sep 11 2017||Brief of Federal Respondents filed. (Distributed)|
|Sep 12 2017||Record requested from the U.S.C.A. District of Columbia Circuit.|
|Sep 15 2017||Blanket Consent filed by Respondent, Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians on 09/15/2017|
|Sep 18 2017||Brief amici curiae of Wayland Township, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Sep 18 2017||Brief amicus curiae of U.S. House of Representatives filed. (Distributed)|
|Sep 18 2017||Brief amicus curiae of National Congress of American Indians filed. (Distributed)|
|Sep 18 2017||Brief amici curiae of Federal Courts and Federal Indian Law Scholars filed. (Distributed)|
|Sep 18 2017||Brief amicus curiae of Professor Edward A. Hartnett filed. (Distributed)|
|Sep 18 2017||Motion for divided argument filed by respondent.|
|Oct 10 2017||Motion for divided argument filed by respondent GRANTED.|
|Oct 11 2017||Reply of petitioner David Patchak filed. (Distributed)|
|Nov 07 2017||Argued. For petitioner: Scott E. Gant, Washington, D. C. For federal respondents: Ann O'Connell, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians respondent: Pratik A. Shah, Washington, D. C.|
|Feb 27 2018||Adjudged to be AFFIRMED. Thomas, J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which Breyer, Alito, and Kagan, JJ., joined. Breyer, J., filed a concurring opinion. Ginsburg, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Sotomayor, J., joined. Sotomayor, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. Roberts, C. J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Kennedy and Gorsuch, JJ., joined.|
|Apr 02 2018||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
In 2019, the Supreme Court limited the scope of a federal law that bans people convicted of felonies from having a gun. Up this morning at the court: back-to-back cases that will decide how many felon-in-possession convictions will need new trials or pleas under that 2019 ruling.
NEW: SCOTUS adds one new case to its docket for next term: Hemphill v. New York, a criminal-procedure case about the interaction between hearsay rules and the right of defendants to confront witnesses against them. Still no action on major petitions involving guns and abortion.
The court will release orders at 9:30 a.m. EDT followed by oral argument in two cases.
First, whether Alaska Native regional and village corporations are “Indian Tribes” for purposes of CARES Act Covid-related relief.
By @StanfordLaw’s Gregory Ablavsky.
Are Alaska Native corporations Indian tribes? A multimillion-dollar question - SCOTUSblog
Are Alaska Native corporations — special corporations that Congress created in 1971 when it resolved Native claims ...
It's official: In the first-ever SCOTUS bracketology tournament, our readers have chosen CHIEF JUSTICE EARL WARREN as the greatest justice in history. The author of Brown v. Board, Loving v. Virginia, and Miranda v. Arizona defeated top-seeded John Marshall in the final round.
We've reached the final round of SCOTUS bracketology, and two illustrious chief justices are facing off for the championship. One wrote Marbury v. Madison. The other wrote Brown v. Board. Our full write-up on both finalists is here: https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/04/the-great-chief-and-the-super-chief-a-final-showdown-in-supreme-court-march-madness/
Cast your vote below!
NEW: The Supreme Court will issue opinion(s?) next Thursday April 22. We’re still waiting on decisions in the ACA case and Fulton v. City of Philadelphia about religious liberty and LGBT rights.
Four Democrats unveiled legislation today to expand the size of the Supreme Court from nine justices to 13 -- but Democratic leaders in both the House and Senate quickly threw cold water on the proposal.
Here's our report from @jamesromoser:
Bill to enlarge the Supreme Court faces dim prospects in Congress - SCOTUSblog
Four congressional Democrats introduced legislation Thursday to expand the number of seats on the Supreme Court from ...
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.