Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians v. Patchak

Facts

In 2005, the Secretary of the Interior decided to acquire the Bradley Property in Wayland Township, Michigan, and hold it in trust for the Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians (the Band), which planned to use the land for a casino. David Patchak, who lived near the property, filed suit under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) after the Supreme Court’s decision in Carcieri v. Salazar, which held that the Secretary’s authority under the Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) was limited to acquiring land for tribes that were “under federal jurisdiction” in 1934. Patchak claimed that the Band was not federally recognized in 1934 and therefore the Secretary lacked authority to take the land into trust. Patchak alleged that the casino would cause him economic, environmental, and aesthetic harms. Unlike a typical quiet title plaintiff, Patchak did not claim any ownership interest in the Bradley Property. The government and the Band argued that Patchak’s suit was barred by sovereign immunity under the Quiet Title Act (QTA), which specifically excludes suits concerning “trust or restricted Indian lands,” and that Patchak lacked prudential standing because his interests fell outside the “zone of interests” protected by the IRA.

#Issue:
1. Does the United States’ sovereign immunity bar Patchak’s suit challenging the Secretary’s acquisition of the Bradley Property in trust for the Band?
2. Does Patchak have prudential standing to challenge the Secretary’s decision under the Indian Reorganization Act?

#Holding:
No, the United States’ sovereign immunity does not bar Patchak’s suit because the Quiet Title Act’s “Indian lands” exception applies only to suits in which the plaintiff claims a competing interest in the land. Yes, Patchak has prudential standing because his interests are arguably within the zone of interests protected or regulated by the Indian Reorganization Act, which encompasses land use considerations.

#Concurring Opinions:
N/A

#Dissenting Opinions:
Justice Sotomayor dissented, arguing that the Quiet Title Act provides the exclusive means to challenge the government’s title to real property and that its Indian lands exception should bar Patchak’s suit. She contended that the majority’s interpretation would allow plaintiffs to circumvent the carefully crafted limitations Congress placed on challenges to the government’s ownership of Indian trust lands.

#Reasoning and Analysis (Kagan): The Court’s analysis focused on two main issues. First, regarding sovereign immunity, the Court held that the Quiet Title Act’s reservation of immunity for suits concerning Indian trust lands did not apply to Patchak’s suit because he was not bringing a quiet title action. Unlike a typical quiet title plaintiff, Patchak did not claim any ownership interest in the Bradley Property. The Court emphasized that the QTA repeatedly refers to “quiet title” actions, which universally require the plaintiff to assert their own right to the disputed property. Since Patchak’s APA suit challenged the Secretary’s authority to take the land into trust without asserting any personal claim to the land, it was not the type of action that the QTA’s Indian lands exception was designed to prohibit. Second, on the prudential standing issue, the Court held that Patchak’s interests fell within the zone of interests protected or regulated by the IRA. The Court reasoned that the IRA’s land acquisition provision was closely connected to land use considerations, as evidenced by the Department’s regulations requiring consideration of intended uses when taking land into trust. Because Patchak’s economic, environmental, and aesthetic interests as a neighboring landowner could be affected by the land’s use, his grievance was arguably within the statute’s zone of interests.

#Policy:
The Court’s decision balances the government’s interest in protecting tribal land acquisitions from certain challenges with the public’s interest in ensuring that agency actions comply with statutory authority. By allowing APA challenges from those who do not claim ownership of the land, the Court permits broader oversight of agency decision-making while still preserving immunity from the specific type of challenge (quiet title actions) that Congress sought to prohibit.

#Where did the Court go from here?:
Following this decision, Congress passed the Gun Lake Trust Land Reaffirmation Act in 2014, which specifically affirmed the trust status of the Band’s land and removed federal court jurisdiction over any actions relating to that land. In Patchak v. Zinke (2018), the Supreme Court upheld this Act against a constitutional challenge, effectively ending Patchak’s litigation. The original Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish decision continues to be significant in administrative law for its interpretation of sovereign immunity waivers and prudential standing requirements.