Constitutional Law Reporter
Award
Menu
  • Home
  • US Constitution
  • Supreme court cases
  • Justices
    • Chief Justices
    • Current Supreme Court Justices
    • Past US Supreme Court Justices
  • American Biographies
  • Articles
    • Current Cases
    • Historical Cases
    • Impeachment
  • Videos
  • Links
Hot-Topics

April 18, 2018 | Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments in Six Cases

Patchak v Zinke to Address Separation of Powers

The Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments in Patchak v Zinke. The case involves whether Congress can enact a statute that withdraws federal court jurisdiction over a pending lawsuit. The case specifically involves whether the Gun Lake Trust Land Reaffirmation Act violates the Constitution’s separation of powers principles, an argument that appeared to garner support from several justices.

Facts of Patchak v Zinke

David Patchak filed a lawsuit challenging the Department of Interior’s authority to take into trust a tract of land (Bradley Property) near his home. In 2009, the District Court dismissed his lawsuit after concluding that he lacked prudential standing. After the Court of Appeals reversed the District Court, the U.S. Supreme Court granted review. It held that Patchak did have standing and that sovereign immunity was waived. Accordingly, it ruled that his “suit may proceed.” Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians v. Patchak, 132 S.Ct. at 2199, 2203 (2012) (“Patchak I”).

After the case was remanded back to the District Court, Congress enacted the Gun Lake Act. The standalone statute stated that any pending (or future) case “relating to” the Bradley Property “shall be promptly dismissed.” However, it failed to amend any underlying substantive or procedural laws. Following the statute’s directive, the District Court entered summary judgment for the Department of the Interior, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.

In again appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court, Patchak argues that Congress impermissibly intruded upon the judicial power in enacting the Gun Lake Act. “If Congress may direct federal courts that a pending case ‘shall be promptly dismissed,’ without any modification of generally applicable substantive or procedural laws, then there is no meaningful limitation on the legislature’s authority and ability to effectively review and displace judicial decisions it finds inconvenient or with which it disagrees,” his petition for certiorari argued.

In response, the federal government cites Congress’ broad Constitutional power “to define and limit the jurisdiction of the inferior courts of the United States.” Lauf v. E.G. Shinner & Co. 303 U.S. 323, 330 (1938). It further notes that the Supreme Court has confirmed that the power includes the authority to withdraw jurisdiction previously given and to subject pending cases to the new jurisdictional limitation Kline v. Burke Constr. Co., 260 U.S. 226, 234 (1922).

Issue Before the Court in Patchak v Zinke

Based on the arguments raised by both sides, the Court must decide the following question: 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?

While several justices seemed sympathetic to the petitioner’s arguments, it is always difficult to predict which way the Court will rule. We will have to wait for the Court’s final decision, which will be released by next June.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW ARTICLES

Hall v Hall: Consolidated Cases Remain Independent for Appeal
by DONALD SCARINCI on April 11, 2018

In Hall v Hall, 584 U. S. ____ (2018), the U.S. Supreme Court held that consolidated cases remain in...

Read More
Marinello v United States: IRS “Omnibus Clause” Requires Nexus for Tax Obstruction
by DONALD SCARINCI on April 5, 2018

In Marinello v United States, 584 U. S. ____ (2018), the U.S. Supreme Court held that prosecutors mu...

Read More
Conditions for Land Use Approvals Require a Nexus to the Property
by DONALD SCARINCI on April 3, 2018

In Koontz v St Johns River Water, 133 S.Ct. 2586 (2013), the U.S. Supreme Court held that government...

Read More
All Posts

The Amendments

  • Amendment1
    • Establishment ClauseFree Exercise Clause
    • Freedom of Speech
    • Freedoms of Press
    • Freedom of Assembly, and Petitition
    Read More
  • Amendment2
    • The Right to Bear Arms
    Read More
  • Amendment4
    • Unreasonable Searches and Seizures
    Read More
  • Amendment5
    • Due Process
    • Eminent Domain
    • Rights of Criminal Defendants
    Read More

Preamble to the Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

Read More

More Recent Posts

  • Conditions for Land Use Approvals Require a Nexus to the Property
  • Stop the Beach Renourishment v Florida Department of Environmental Protection: Littoral Rights in Florida are Protected
  • Kelo v New London: Taking Land for Private Development Doesn’t Violate Constitution
  • Franklin Delano Roosevelt's Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

Constitutional Law

Constitutional Law Tweets

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REPORTER RSS FEED

Blecher-Prigat on Contested Parentage & Relationships Between Prospective Parents
26 April 2018 - Lawrence Solum

Ayelet Blecher-Prigat (The Academic College for Law & Science) has posted Conceiving Parents (Ha [...]

MacLeod on Property as a Metaphysical Right
25 April 2018 - Lawrence Solum

Adam MacLeod (Faulkner University - Thomas Goode Jones School of Law) has posted Metaphysical Right [...]

Key issue on immigration: Is the “ban” really a ban?
25 April 2018 - Lyle Denniston

In a period of about 20 weeks, a total of 430 travelers have been allowed to enter the U.S. from the [...]

Petition of the day
25 April 2018 - Aurora Barnes

The petition of the day is: Vazquez v. Sessions 17-1304 Issue: Whether a conviction under a state cr [...]

Afternoon round-up: Today’s oral argument in Trump v. Hawaii
25 April 2018 - Andrew Hamm

Today the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Trump v. Hawaii, a challenge to the latest version of [...]

Editor

Donald Scarinci

Managing Partner

Scarinci Hollenbeck

(201) 806-3364

Constitutional Law Reporter

Follow me

© 2016 Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC. All rights reserved.

Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Attorney Advertising