|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.|
Today at SCOTUS: Two oral arguments starting at 10 a.m. EST. One is on federal anti-discrimination laws. The other is on Medicare payments for drugs dispensed by hospitals -- with big questions about the doctrine of Chevron deference lurking in the background.
Bill Cosby’s prosecutors asked the Supreme Court to reinstate his conviction today. Quick explainer.
In our latest episode of SCOTUStalk, @shefalil of @19thnews joined us to preview Wednesday's argument in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health. Shefali explains the current state of abortion access and the case's implications in Mississippi and across America.
Roe, Dobbs, and the current state of abortion access - SCOTUSblog
In advance of Wednesday's oral argument in the momentous abortion case, Shefali Luthra, a gender and health care r...
Update: Without calling for a response or referring the case to the full court, Justice Breyer just rejected last week's challenge from Massachusetts hospital workers who object to the hospital's COVID vaccine mandate.
(Breyer handles emergency requests from Massachusetts.)
JUST IN: Another shadow-docket challenge to a COVID vaccine mandate. This one is from employees at Mass General Brigham who say the Boston-based hospital violated federal law by not granting them exemptions from the hospital's vaccine policy. Filing here: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/21A175.pdf
Today at SCOTUS: The justices return to the bench for oral argument in a case about Medicare payments to hospitals that serve low-income patients. Lots of money at stake, plus potential implications for the Chevron doctrine. @JACoganJr explains the case:
Money for safety-net hospitals at stake in dispute over Medicare payment formula - SCOTUSblog
When it comes to highlighting the complexity of the Medicare Act and its hospital payment rules, Becerra v. Empire...
Two days from now, SCOTUS will hear the biggest abortion case in a generation. In a battle over a Mississippi law, abortion opponents are asking the court to end the constitutional right to abortion. Here's our preview of the case, via @AHoweBlogger.
Roe v. Wade hangs in balance as reshaped court prepares to hear biggest abortion case in decades - SCOTUSblog
When he ran for president in 2016, then-candidate Donald Trump promised to nominate Supreme Court justices who would...