# Opposition Brief — Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians v. Patchak

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385015_0740%3A03

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Opposition Brief
- **Published:** January 1, 2012
- **Citation:** 566 U.S. 919

## Text

: >
ho =]

Ail)
BRic=5 Nos. 11-246 & 11-247

IN THE
Supreme Court of the United States

MATCH-E-BE-NASH-SHE-WISH BAND OF POTTAWATOMI
INDIANS, PETITIONER

Ve

DAVID PATCHAK, ET AL.

KEN L. SALAZAR, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, ET AL..
PETITIONERS

Ve

DAVID PATCHAK, ET AL.

On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari
To The United States Court Of Appeals
For The District of Columbia Circuit

BRIEF FOR RESPONDENT DAVID PATCHAK
IN OPPOSITION

DANIEL P. ETTINGER
Counsel of Record
MATTHEW T. NELSON
AARON D. LINDSTROM
NICOLE L. MAZZOccOo
WARNER NORCROSS & JUDD LLP
111 Lvon Street N.W.
900 Fifth Third Center
Grand Rapids. MI 49503
(616) 752-2000
dettinger@wnj.com

Counsel for Respondent David Patchak

U*h--- “aes

i
QUESTIONS PRESENTED

1. A plaintiff may bring suit under the Quiet Ti-
tle Act (“QTA”) “to adjudicate a disputed title to real
property in which the United States claims an inter-
est” if the plaintiff asserts a claim to a “right, title, or
interest . . . in the real property.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 2409a(d). Does the QTA’s reservation of federal
sovereign immunity for suits concerning “trust or re-
stricted Indian lands” impliedly bar suits challenging
agency action under the APA that could not be
brought under the QTA because the plaintiff is not
seeking to quiet title to the land in question?

2. Section 465 of the Indian Reorganization Act
and its implementing regulations limit the Secretary
of the Interior’s discretion in deciding whether to
take land into trust for an Indian tribe. Does a
plaintiff living in a community affected by the Secre-
tary’s land-in-trust decision fall within the zone of
interests protected by that provision and thus have
prudential standing to enforce that limitation?

OPINIONS BELOW
JURISDICTION
STATEMENT

I.

Il.

ll

TABLE OF CONTENTS

The Court should decline to address

this interlocutory appeal

A. Because federal sovereign

immunity is not a right to avoid
trial, it can be vindicated after

a caastebeiionsienniineds

The existence of a second,
independent sovereign-immunity
issue means that a reversal would
not resolve sovereign immunity in

SDSS SERS BN Se

The D.C. Circuit correctly held that
the Quiet Title Act’s sovereign-
immunity bar did not apply because
Patchak did not bring a quiet-title

claim
A.

The decision below is consistent
with both the Quiet Title Act and

this Court’s decisions .......................-.-

The conflict is new and should be
given more time to develop now
that a court of appeals has, for the
first time, focused on the Quiet

, | tI ARSE A oyna eae

The prudential-standing decision does
not conflict with this Court’s decisions,
implicate a circuit split, or warrant

this Court’s review
CONCLUSION

td Ee ee ee ee ee tel

SRR RRR EERE REE EEE EEO THe

TOP Pee eC ee Cee eee ee eee

SOE EEE THRE REET EEE HERE

ill

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)

Federal Cases
Am. Fed'n of Gov't Employees v. Cohen,

vee se Foy, Le Ae! | nena 30
Bank of Hemet vy. United States,

643 F’.24 661 (9th Cir. 1961).......................... 16, 17
Barlow v. Collins,

a TI i cocks becdloiapedbtplaalial 23, 24
Beers v. State,

ee LER TTT Ie 18
Block y. North Dakota,

gS LE ae:
California v. United States,

4 | EES pe neeare pene eer ar 25
Carcieri v. Salazar,

BBD BH. CE. DGB CIGD) occccccccccccccccescccccccse 1, 2, 29, 30
City of Sault Ste. Marie v. Andrus,

458 F. Supp. 465 (D.D.C. 1978)........................... 27
Clarke v. Sec. Indus. Ass'n,

gg ft 8, Sones 7, 8, 28, 29
Courtney v. Smith,

297 F.3d 455 (6th Cir. 2002)................................ 30
Delano Farms Co. v. Cal. Table Grape

Comm n,

655 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2011)............................ 26

Delta Sav. & Loan Ass'n, Inc. v. IRS,
BOT FB BOG (BGR CA. BD nccccccccccccccccccccccoccccsece 16

iV

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued

Page(s)

Dept of Interiorv. South Dakota,

ER SIT SR Se ee re 17,19
Florida Dep't of Bus. Regulation v. Dep't

of Intertor,

1 PA Bi Leet: Yo Ae) | ees 25
Goldstein v. Cox,

I ssn 10
Hamilton-Brown Shoe Co. v. Wolf Bros.,

I, i a A endiismnaaianils 10
Houston Cmty. Hosp. v. Blue Cross &

Blue Shield of Texas, Inc.,

481 F.3BG BOS (Gti Civ. BOOT )......ccccccccccccccccc0500000-. 13
In re Sealed Case No. 99-3091,

BOR P.O BOO UD. Cie. BBD) cccccccccsccccceccscccccces. 13
In re World Trade Ctr. Disaster Site

Litg.,

se x Bo Ly Le | eee 14
lowa Tribe of Kansas & Nebraska v.

Salazar,

607 F.3d 1225 (10th Cir. 2010)................ ictiiade 18
Jonida Trucking, Inc. v. Hunt,

BBG FBG Tae CGE Cae. 1B 7) .cciccccccesicccccccsccssccsss00. 30
Kontrick v. Ryan,

EEE RS nee ce eS PR SEED 12
Lane v. Pena,

i usdaebuiiiiesabials 15

Maysonet-Robles v. Cabrero,
Se re ee Fe ED indernicecscccescescccensacccstes 18

v

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued

Page(s)

Metro. Water Dist. of S. Cal. y. United

States,

— f & Bs fo Te Re; 5 Ren leanne 25
Nati] Credit Union Admin. v. First Nat7

Bank & Trust Co.,

EA aT NR sc 28
Neighbors for Rational Dev. v. Norton,

STO F.3e BEG (1Gt Civ. BOOE)....nccccccccccccccccsee 25, 26
Pullman Const. Indus., Inc. v. United

States,

23 F.3d 1166 (7th Cir. 1004)...............0..0. 3. 2. i
Rosebud Sioux Tribe v. McDivitt,

, pe 8 Ff Teo — | esses 30
State of Alaska v. United States,

G6 Fe 1SGS (Otis Cir. 1GBB)....cccccccccccccccccessce 13, 14
United States v. Mottaz,

LG TR ee =
United States v. Virginia,

ETERS AIS AR Sores Mane eae Ma 11
Van Cauwenberghe v. Biard,

EI RAR ete CN ME Epa te Mee valle oP 12
Virginia Military Inst. v. United States,

EE eee BER ce Ee RI 10
Federal Statutes
TRC SE ES ECE nnee ICN bee AA Des en 5
RL RRR IRAE ABE SR se Pin OT wicca ot Ree A 1

Be IEEE eh iden nicesidbanatebiigaulddnascnlinnaassnatesidccudevidie 1

vi

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued

Page(s)

re acre aa a0 cc camemetenebgtionnians 1
SN I OE EE cw nid tsonieceladasninblaieeameaitenaneesieconaiet 27
| EL LEE AR erap eer norte nave mpwreene Reno en Ec 26
Sn cneiceenienans passim
I aici didaneldeneenmcnnenl passim
Oe I tits crcntiecstocceadseniascsaesesidaiiannaaadnasanndaekpebiebadined 5
Federal Rules
RE, OF a NN ce sccedicncsnhaendsdtninecsecccotescesoumbeien 8, 29
i Se I IID ists sce kcenesininnsisinsisienecomeusonetaiesenuntnnion 8, 29
tek fe Eel ag RRS epee teenie See we ete 18, 19
Be es Oe CIID eiininsduntrenndesesianensabessinnecessons passim
er NT I eos paler ih ocd cnasatenpebieseedaeehandennesiouaiebe 2
Final Determination to Acknowledge the

Gun Lake Band, 63 Fed. Reg. 56,936,

ls, Big SIE setlist cntcnsendiininesrcnsnsnensensesseene 3
Land Acquisitions, 61 Fed. Reg. 18,082

CRG, Fic Ce eter ennictsnasistiiinntadsqsneinnioscsaveoieenes 18, 29

Notice of Final Agency Determination, 70
Fed. Reg. 25,596 (May 13, 2005) ..........00......... 4,19

Proposed Finding for Federal
Acknowledgement of the Gun Lake
Band, 62 Fed. Reg. 38,113, 38,113
Ne I esis chcccdliiiniudnendetienbounceniivdecaianssinne 1

Vu

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued

Page(s)
Other Authorities
16 JAMES WM. MOORE ET AL., MOORE’S
FEDERAL PRACTICE 105.21[4]............00.0..000.0.. 18, 20

S. Rep. 996, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. 4 (1976)
FER ARS aS reo 12, 15, 18, 24

BRIEF IN OPPOSITION

OPINIONS BELOW

The court of appeals’ opinion is reported at 632
F.3d 702. DOI Pet. App. la. The opinion of the
United States District Court for the District of Co-
lumbia is reported at 646 F. Supp. 2d 72. Jd. at 27a.

JURISDICTION

The district court had jurisdiction over respon-
dent’s claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The
court of appeals had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. The court of appeals entered judgment on
January 21, 2011, and on March 28, 2011, denied pe-
titions for rehearing en banc. The petitions were
timely filed by August 25, 2011, the deadline after
the Chief Justice granted extensions to the time in
which to file petitions for a writ of certiorari. This
Court’s jurisdiction rests on 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1).

STATEMENT

1. The Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of the
Pottawatomi Indians, commonly known as the Gun
Lake Band, was not federally recognized when Con-
gress enacted the Indian Reorganization Act (“IRA”)
in 1934. Proposed Finding for Federal Acknowl-
edgement of the Gun Lake Band, 62 Fed. Reg.
38,113, 38,113 (June 23, 1997). For nearly 100 years
before the IRA’s enactment, the Band affirmatively
avoided the jurisdiction of the United States. This
history is significant because in Carcieri v. Salazar,
129 S. Ct. 1058 (2009), this Court held that the IRA
allows the Department of the Interior (“DOI”) to take
land into trust only for “those tribes that were under

2

the federal jurisdiction of the United States when the
IRA was enacted in 1934.” /d. at 1068.

In 1839, the Band placed itself under the protec-
tion of an Episcopalian mission to avoid the federal
government's plan to move Indians west, and occu-
pied lands in Allegan County, Michigan. Fee-to-
Trust Appl., p. 4, COA JA 894. In 1855, the Episco-
palian bishop declared that he held lands in trust for
the Band. /d. at 895. Also in 1855, the Pottawatomi
signed the Treaty of Detroit, which required Band
members to reside in Oceana County, Michigan, and
a majority of the Band complied with the treaty by
moving to Oceana County. /d. But in 1870, the
Band violated the treaty by returning to Allegan
County, Michigan, thereby breaking off the Band’s
relationship with the federal government. Formal
DOI Technical Assistance Letter from Joann Sebas-
tian Moore, Director of Office of Tribal Services, to
D.K. Sprague, Gun Lake Band, p. 2 (May 5, 1995),
Exhibit A to Patchak’s COA Appellant’s Br. {herein-
after “DOI Technical Assistance Letter”]. As the
DOI has previously determined, “[s]ince 1870, the
Federal government has dealt with band members as
individual Indians entitled to attendance at BIA
schools, etc., but Aas not dea/t with the band as an
entity.” Id. (emphasis added).

2. In 1993, the Band filed an application for fed-
eral recognition under 25 C.F.R. § 83.7, a section that
applies only to tribes that are not acknowledged or
recognized by the federal government at the time of
application. The filing therefore acknowledged that
the Band lacked federal recognition before 1993. See
also Gun Lake Band COA Br., p. 3, COA JA 94
(“(T]he federal government withheld formal ac-
knowledgement beginning in 1870. .. . Thus, for well

ra)
2

over a century, the Tribe was denied both federal
recognition and reservation lands on which it could
pursue commercial self-determination and _ self-
sufficiency.”). Before this Court’s decision in Carci-
ert, the federal government also acknowledged the
Band’s lack of federal recognition. Decl. of George T.
Skibine, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary, De-
partment of Interior, | 8, COA JA 166 (noting that
the Gun Lake Band’s recognition had been previ-
ously terminated).

At the time the Band applied for federal recogni-
tion, the Band internally agreed “there would never
be casinos in our Tribe,” and represented in its con-
stitution that it had “decided not to sacrifice the fu-
ture of its membership to gaming interests and the
changes to traditions in the community that gaming
could bring.” Fee-to-Trust Appl., p. 79, COA JA 925
(emphasis omitted). The Band received federal rec-
ognition in 1998. See Final Determination to Ac-
knowledge the Gun Lake Band, 63 Fed. Reg. 56,936,
56,936 (Oct. 14, 1998).

3. In 2001, the Band applied for land to use for a
casino complex. Its application requested that the
United States take into trust a 165-acre site in rural
Wayland Township (the “Bradley Tract”) in Allegan
County to enable the Band to construct and operate a
casino complex. Trust Appl., COA JA 890. This land
was owned by MPM Enterprises LLC, which was in
turn owned by Station Casinos and other investors.
Id., p. 4, COA JA 878; Station Casinos, Inc., Mar. 31,
2011 Form 10-K at 11-12. In its application, the
Band acknowledged that it “was ineligible to organ-
ize under the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934.”
Id., p. 5, COA JA 895. And Band members echoed
this concession during the application process: “For

4

approximately 150 years, my Tribe has suffered due
to the United States’ government’s failure to recog-
nize us as an Indian Tribe.” Final EA, Appendix Q,
p. 124, COA JA 855.

The environmental assessment conducted during
the application process proposed a gambling complex
of nearly 200,000 square feet, including almost
99,000 square feet of gaming space, two sit-down res-
taurants, a café, two fast-food outlets, four retail
shops, a sports bar, an entertainment lounge, office
space, and parking for more than 3,330 cars, buses,
and RVs. Final EA, pp. 2-1, 2-2, COA JA 535, 729.
This casino complex, which would be open 24 hours a
day, 365 days a year, is expected to draw 3.1 million
visitors annually—to a farming community of only
3,000 residents. /d., Appendix H, COA JA 754, 577.

4. Fearing the substantial effect that a ratio of a
thousand visitors to every resident would have on
their community, members of the local community
submitted numerous comments and urged DOI to re-
ject the application. /d, Appendix P, COA JA 779,
788. The final environmental assessment confirmed
these concerns, noting that traffic during peak hours
would be 1,110 cars per hour in this farming com-
munity. /d. p. 4-6, COA JA 623. But the DOI made
a final agency determination on April 18, 2005, that
it would acquire the Bradley Tract in trust for the
Band. Notice of Final Agency Determination, 70
Fed. Reg. 25,596, 25,596 (May 13, 2005). The notice
of determination stated that, in accordance with 25
C.F.R. Part 151.12(b), an IRA regulation, DOI was
giving notice to the public “at least 30 days prior to
the signatory acceptance of the land into trust.” Jd.

A nonprofit organization of concerned citizens,
called Michigan Gambling Opposition (“MichGO”),

3

filed a complaint within 30 days of the notice and
challenged the DOI’s right to take the Bradley Tract
into trust on a number of grounds, including failure
to comply with the National Environmental Policy
Act (“NEPA”), the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act
(“IGRA”), 25 U.S.C. §2701 et seqg., and the IRA.
MichGO’s IRA claim alleged a violation of the non-
delegation doctrine. Because MichGO filed suit well
before the Court’s decision in Carcieri, MichGO did
not assert that the DOI could not take land into trust
because the Band was not federally recognized in
1934. And the courts refused to consider that issue
in the MichGO litigation.

5. The MichGO litigation resulted in a stay that
prevented the DOI from taking the land into trust.
On August 1, 2008, during the stay and before the
DOI took the land into trust, David Patchak filed
this suit against the DOI. Patchak sought review
under the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”), 5
U.S.C. §§ 702, 706, of the DOI’s final agency decision.
Relying on Carcier7, he argued that the DOI lacked
the authority to take the land into trust because the

Gun Lake Band was not under federal jurisdiction in
1934.

Patchak, who lives near the Bradley Tract,
moved to the area “because of its unique rural set-
ting,” and he “values the quiet life he leads in Way-
land Township.” Compl. 49, COA JA 12. The
planned construction and operation of a casino com-
plex, which would bring 3.1 million visitors annually
to a community of 3,000 residents, would destroy
that quiet lifestyle. Jd.; see Final EA, ch. 3, p. 3-29,
COA JA 577, 754. He anticipates the following ad-
verse effects:

6

(a) an irreversible change in the rural charac-
ter of the area; (b) loss of enjoyment of the aes-
thetic and environmental qualities of the agri-
cultural land surrounding the casino site; (c)
increased traffic; (d) increased light, noise, air,
and storm water pollution; (e) increased crime;
if) diversion of police, fire, and emergency
medical services; (g) decreased property val-
ues; (h) increased property taxes; (i) diversion
of community resources to the treatment of
gambling addiction; (j) weakening of the fam-
ily atmosphere of the community; and (k)
other aesthetic, socioeconomic, and environ-
mental problems associated with a gambling
casino. |Compl. 4 9, COA JA 12.]

6. The stay in the MichGO litigation expired
when the Court denied MichGO’s petition for a writ
of certiorari. Accordingly, Patchak moved for a stay
to prevent the DOI from taking the land into trust.
The district court denied Patchak’s motion. The DOI
took the land into trust five months after Patchak
initiated this litigation. The government asserted
that by taking the land into trust while Patchak’s
suit was pending, sovereign immunity under the
Quiet Title Act sprang up. Thus, the DOI asserted
that the DOT's action deprived the court of jurisdic-
tion.

7. The district court dismissed Patchak’s com-
plaint on the theory that Patchak lacked prudential
standing because he was not within the IRA’s zone of
interests. DOI Pet. App. 37a. Although acknowledg-
ing that the zone-of-interests test is “not meant to be
especially demanding,” and that “it only excludes
plaintiffs whose interests are so marginally related
to or inconsistent with the purposes implicit in the

7

statute that it cannot be reasonably assumed that
Congress intended to permit the suit,” id. at 33a
(quoting Clarke v. Sec. Indus. Ass'n, 479 U.S. 388,
399-400 (1987)), the trial court concluded Patchak
fell outside that zone because he was “not an Indian”
and did not “seek to protect or vindicate the interests
of any Indians or Indian tribes.” /d. at 35a. The dis-
trict court explicitly stated that “because the Court
finds that plaintiff lacks prudential standing, the
Court need not, and does not, reach [the Quiet Title
Act] issue in this opinion.” /d. at 37a n.12.

8. The D.C. Circuit reversed. DOI Pet. App. 22a.
Emphasizing this Court’s guidance concerning the
APA’s “generous review provisions,” the “drive for
enlarging the category of aggrieved persons,” and
that “the test is not especially demanding,” 7d. at 5a
(quotations and citations omitted), the court of ap-
peals recognized that Patchak falls within the zone
of interests protected by the IRA. “The IRA provi-
sions interpreted in [Carcieri limit the Secretary’s
trust authority.” /d. at 7a. “When that limitation
blocks Indian gaming, as Patchak claims it should
have in this case, the interests of those in the sur-
rounding community—or at least those who would
suffer from living near a gambling operation—are
arguably protected.” J/d. The court of appeals noted
that “[tJhe Interior Department itself recognizes the
interests of individuals like Patchak who live close to
proposed Indian gaming establishments,” as evi-
denced by the fact that DOI regulations allow “af-
fected members of the public’ thirty days to seek ju-
dicial review before the Secretary takes land into
trust for an Indian tribe,” and that “lo]ther regula-
tions require the Secretary to consider the purpose
for which the land will be used and whether taking a
tribe’s land into trust would give rise to ‘potential

8

conflicts of land use.” Jd. at 8a—Ya (citing 25 C.F.R.
§$§ 151.12(b) & 151.10(c) , (f) ). The D.C. Circuit also
observed that “[tihe zone-of-interests test weeds out
litigants who lack a sufficient interest in the contro-
versy, litigants whose ‘interests are so marginally
related to or inconsistent with the purposes implicit
in the statute that it cannot reasonably be assumed
that Congress intended to permit the suit.” Jd. at
10a ‘quoting Clarke, 479 U.S. at 399). Unlike that
type of marginal litigant, Patchak’s “stake in oppos-
ing the Band’s casino is intense and obvious,” and it
would be “very strange to deny Patchak standing in
this case.” Jd.

The D.C. Circuit also rejected the government’s
assertion that Patchak brought a Quiet Title Act
case and that because his APA claim related to land
taken in trust for Indians, his claim was barred by
sovereign immunity. /d. at 2la. The court of appeals
noted that the “common feature of quiet title actions
is missing from this case”: Patchak is not trying to
“establish a plaintiffs title to land,” as “he mounts
no claim of ownership of the Bradley Tract.” Jd. at
14a. Focusing on the statutory text, the court ob-
served that “the language of § 2409a firmly indicates
that Congress intended to enact legislation building
upon the traditional concept of an action to quiet ti-
tle.” /d. at 14a—1ia. Section 2409a of the Quiet Title
Act requires the plaintiff to “set forth with particu-
larity the nature of the right, title, or interest which
the plaintiff claims in the real property.” Id. at 15a
(quoting 28 U.S.C. §2409a(d)) (emphasis added).
Further, Section 2409a(b) allows the government the
option of retaining possession of the land if it loses
the quiet title action, “so long as the government
pays just compensation to the person entitled to the
property.” /d. at 16a. This just-compensation provi-

)

sion “is senseless unless there is someone else—the
plaintiff—claiming ownership.” /d. Accordingly, the
D.C. Circuit refused to follow other courts that have
“extended the reach of the Quiet Title Act beyond its
text” and held that “the terms of the Quiet Title Act
do not cover Patchak’s suit” and that “[hjis action
therefore falls within the general waiver of sovereign
immunity set forth in § 702 of the APA.” Jd. at 21a.

The Court of Appeals noted that Patchak had ar-
gued that because he filed suit before the Bradley
Tract was taken into trust, even if the Quiet Title
Act applied, sovereign immunity did not bar his
claim. The Court of Appeals chose not to address the
issue in light of its determination that the Quiet Ti-
tle Act did not apply to Patchak’s claim in the first
instance. Jd. at 2lan.10.

9. After the Court of Appeals issued its decision
permitting Patchak’s challenge to the legality of the
DOI’ land-in-trust decision to proceed, the Band
opened a sprawling casino complex on the Bradley
Tract. As Patchak predicted, the casino has severely
disrupted the rural character of the area. Media re-
ports indicated that after opening, the parking lots at
the casino were “so full and traffic is so heavy along
US 131 [that police] closed the northbound and
southbound exits” to the highway. Appellant’s Resp.
to Band’s Mot. to Stay the Mandate, Exs. A, B. And
police calls in the area have, as expected, “skyrock-
eted,” doubling from historical levels in the first
month of operations and tripling in the second
month. Grand Rapids Press article, Apr. 9, 2011,
available at http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-
rapids/index.ssf/2011/04/why_township_ officials_
arent_c.html (“It’s been like dropping a small city
into the middle of that area.”). The casino complex

10

has thus already disrupted the rural lifestyle of Way-
land Township; the inevitable result of bringing mil-
lions of annual visitors into a farming community of
only 3,000 residents.

. ARGUMENT

The petitioners contend that the APA’s waiver of
sovereign immunity is barred by the Quiet Title Act,
even though Patchak is not bringing and cannot
bring a quiet-title action. They also contend that
Patchak does not fall within the zone of interests
protected by § 465 of the IRA, even though he is
seeking to enforce the limitation § 465 imposes under
Carciert, and even though the DOI itself considers
interests like his when deciding whether to take land
into trust under § 465. The court of appeals correctly
rejected both contentions. No further review is war-
ranted, especially given the interlocutory nature of
the sovereign-immunity decision and the lack of any
split among the circuits on the prudential-standing
issue.

I. The Court should decline to address this
interlocutory appeal

The D.C. Circuit’s decision concluding that sov-
ereign immunity did not bar Patchak’s suit is inter-
locutory. This Court generally declines to exercise
its certiorari jurisdiction to review interlocutory de-
cisions. See Hamiulton-Brown Shoe Co. v. Wolf Bros.,
240 U.S. 251, 258 (1916); see also Goldstein v. Cox,
396 U.S. 471, 478 (1970) (“this Court above all other
must limit its review of interlocutory orders”); com-
pare Virginia Military Inst. v. United States, 508
U.S. 946 (1993) (opinion of Scalia, J., on denial of
certiorari, noting the interlocutory posture of the

ll

litigation), with United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S.
515 (1996) (review granted after final judgment).

The Court should decline review here for two
reasons. First, although state sovereign immunity is
a right not to be sued, and so a right that may in
some circumstances warrant protection even at the
interlocutory stage, most of the federal circuits that
have addressed the issue have recognized that /ed-
eral sovereign immunity is merely a nght not to pay
damages—that is, a right that can be fully vindicated
after judgment.

Second, a decision by this Court reversing the
D.C. Circuit would not finally resolve the sovereign-
immunity issue in this case. There is a second, inde-
pendent reason that sovereign immunity does not
apply that would need to be addressed on remand:
Patchak sued before the government took the land
into trust, and the APA waiver of sovereign immu-
nity existing when he filed his complaint controls.
Because reversing the Court of Appeals’ decision on
sovereign immunity likely would not change the out-
come in this case, this case is an inadequate vehicle
for this Court’s review.

A. Because federal sovereign immunity
is not a right to avoid trial, it can be
vindicated after final judgment

As several federal courts of appeals have recog-
nized, “it is difficult to speak of federal sovereign
immunity as a ‘right not to be sued.” Pullman
Const. Indus., Inc. v. United States, 23 F.3d 1166,
1168 (7th Cir. 1994) (Easterbrook, J.). “(I]t is quite
unlike the eleventh amendment, which provides that
‘(t]he judicial power of the United States shall not be
construed to extend’ to suits against states, and the

12

Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act (FSIA), which gives
foreign governments immunity from the jurisdiction’
of our courts.” /d (citation omitted). For example,
“injo one could argue with a straight face that the
United States has, or ever had, a general ‘right not to
be sued’ concerning taxes.” /d at 1169. Indeed, “the
United States is no stranger to litigation in its own
courts,” given that “the United States Code is riddled
with statutes authorizing relief against the United
States and its agencies,” including the fact that
“Congress has consented to litigation in federal
courts seeking equitable relief against the United
States.” Jd at 1168 (citing, for the last point, 5
U.S.C. § 702); see also S. Rep. 996, 94th Cong., 2c
Sess. 4 (1976) (Senate Report) (legislative history to
§ 702 of the APA stating that “flor years almost
every regulatory Statute enacted by Congress has
contained provisions authorizing Federal courts to
review the legality of administrative action that has
adversely affected private citizens”). Instead,
“iflederal sovereign immunity today is nothing but a
condensed way to refer to the fact that monetary re-
lief is permissible only to the extent Congress has
authorized it.”' Pullman, 23 F.3d at 1168.

! The Seventh Circuit noted that this Court had previously de-
scribed federal sovereign immunity in dicta as a mght not two be
sued. Pullman, 23 F.3d at 1168. But those statements were
dicta because, “in the entire existence of the United States, the
federal government has never before taken an interlocutory ap-
peal to assert sovereign immunity.” /¢@ So although this Court
may have made such statements in passing, it has not resolved
the issue, and in fact has held that the collateral-order doctrine
does not apply to all claims of “immunity.” /¢@ at 1169 (citing
lan Cauwenberghe v. Biard, 486 US. 517 (1988)), cf. Kentrnck
v. Ryan, 540 U.S. 443, 454 (2004) (Courts, including this Court,

| Footnote continued on next page|

13

Other courts of appeals that have considered the
issue in the civil context have reached the same con-
clusion, including the Ninth Circuit in a case brought
under the Quiet Title Act. State of Alaska v. United
States, 64 F.3d 1352, 1355 (9th Cir. 1995) (“We hold
that, despite the label ‘immunity,’ federal sovereign
immunity is not best characterized as a ‘right not to
stand trial altegether.’ . . . Like immunity from ser-
vice of process (leading to lack of personal jurisdic-
tion), federal sovereign immunity is better viewed as
a right not to be subject to a binding judgment. Such
a right may be vindicated effectively after trial.”).
Houston Cmty. Hosp. v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of
Texas, Inc., 481 F.3d 265, 280 (5th Cir. 2007) (“|The
only portion of the United States’ original immunity
from suit that Congress continues to assert is a mght
not to pay damages.” (quoting Pu//man)). Although
the D.C. Circuit disagreed with these other circuits
on the scope of federal sovereign immunity, it did so
outside the civil context, observing that it was “far
from clear that Congress has waived federal sover-
eign immunity in the context of criminal contempt.”
In re Sealed Case No. 99-3091, 192 F.3d 995, 999
(D.C. Cir. 1999) (emphasis added); see also Houston
Cmty. Hosp., 481 F.3d at 279 (noting that the D.C.
Circuit reached its conclusion “under circumstances
too distinguishable to create a circuit split”); compare
In re World Trade Ctr. Disaster Site Litig., 521 F.3d

{Footnote continued from previous page|

it is true, have been less than meticulous im this regard: they
describe emphatic time prescriptions im rules of court. Juris-
diction,’ the Court has aptly observed, ‘is a word of many. too
many, meanings.™).

i4

169, 192 (2d Cir. 2008) ‘distinguishing Pul/man
based on specific statutory language addressing dis-
creuonary-function immunity).

In short, federal sovereign immunity, unlike
Eleventh Amendment immunity, is not a right to
avoid suit. It is a defense that can be vindicated ef-
fectively after trial. See State of Alaska, 64 F 3d at
1357 (“The denial of federal sovereign immunity, we
conclude, imposes no hardship on the United States
that is qualitatively different from, or weightier
than, the hardship imposed by the denial of such de-
fenses as the statute of limitations or res judicata,
both of which have been held to be effectively re-
viewable following trial.”).

This Court should also decline to grant review to
decide the sovereign-immunity question presented
because even if this Court were to reverse on that
question, the Court's decision would not finally re-
solve the issue of sovereign immunity in this case.
There is a second sovereign-immunity issue—the
“time-of-filing issue”—-that the court of appeals did
not reach: “we do not address whether sovereign im-
munity should be determined as of the date his com-
plaint was filed [on August 1, 2008] rather than after
the Secretary took the land into trust jon January
30, 2009].” DOI Pet. App. 21a n.10. In other words,
if this Court reverses and concludes that the Quiet
Title Act applies, the United States will still have to
address the separate argument that the Quiet Title
Act's assertion of sovereign immunity does not apply

15

to suits filed before the land is taken into trust by
the government. Therefore, this case is interlocutory
with respect to the sovereign-immunity issue itself,

In the APA, Congress decided to waive sovereign
immunity over suits challenging final agency actions.
5 U.S.C. § 702 (“A person suffering legal wrong be-
cause of agency action, or adversely affected or ag-
grieved by agency action within the meaning of a
relevant statute, is entitled to judicial review thereof.
An action in a court of the United States seeking re-
lief other than money damages . . . shall not be dis-
missed nor relief therein be denied on the ground
that it is against the United States... .”). Relying
on that waiver, Patchak filed his complaint after the
final agency determination and before the govern-
ment took the land into trust under the [RA—in
other words, in the window the government specifi-
cally created for judicial review.2 Having waived its
sovereign immunity for suits brought within that
window, the government cannot at a later date reas-
sert a right that it previously waived. Indeed, the
finality of waiver—that it “eliminatejes!” the right—
has led this Court to find a “waiver of the Federal
Government's sovereign immunity” only if it is “un-
equivocally expressed in the statutory text.” Lane v.
Pena, 518 U.S. 187, 192 (1996) (describing waiver as
“elimination of sovereign immunity™); see also Sen-
ate Report 2, 5, 24, 25 (explaining that the statute
will “eliminatele]” sovereign immunity).

2 The DOI regulation’s notice requirement imposes a floor, not
a ceiling. It requires that the notice state that the DOI wil! ac-
quire title “no sooner than 30 days after the notice is pub-
lished.” 25 C_F_R. § 151.12i(b).

16

The Ninth Circuit considered a similar issue in
Bank of Hemet v. United States, 643 F.2d 661 (9th
Cir. 1981), and held that the United States could not
retraci—or un-waive—a waiver of sovereign immu-
nity. In Hemet, the bank filed its complaint contain-
ing a quiet-title claim on January 4, 1978. At the
tume the bank filed its complaint, the government
claimed title to the disputed property, and so the
Quiet Title Act’s waiver provision, 28 U.S.C. § 2409a,
applied.* Jd at 665. Despite this waiver, the gov-
ernment sold the property several weeks later (on
January 30, 1978), before service of the complaint
was effected, and thereafter argued that the waiver
did not apply because the government had divested
itself of its interest in the property. Jd at 664. The
Ninth Circuit, noting that the government had notice
of the complaint before selling the property, rejected
the government's attempt to divest the court of juris-
diction: “We hold that under the circumstances of
this case the presence of a waiver of sovereign im-
munity should be determined as of the date the com-
plaint was filed.” Jd at 665. A contrary holding, the
court of appeals recognized, would allow “the gov-
ernment to manipulate its position subsequent to the
filing of the complaint so as to present a situation
that falls between the cracks of applicable waiver
statutes.” Jd; see also Delta Sav. & Loan Assn, Inc.
v. IRS, 847 F.2d 248, 249 n.1 (5th Cir. 1988) (follow-
ing Bank of Hemet).

3 The exception in the Quiet Title Act for “trust or restricted
Indian lands” at issue im Patchak's case was not implicated in
Hemet

17

Below, the government contended that it was not
manipulating jurisdiction by its position, even
though its time-of-filing theory would allow it to
evade Congress's waiver of sovereign immunity in
the APA for almost every instance where the gov-
ernment took land into trust for an Indian tribe.
Under the government's theory, a plaintiff seeking to
quiet title who filed suit under the APA before the
government took the land into trust and after the
agency's final determination would initially be al-
lowed to bring his suit because Congress waived sov-
ereign immunity via the APA. But once the act he
was seeking to prevent occurred—that is, once the
government took land into trust—the Quiet Title Act
would automatically bar his suit from continuing
(assuming the government is right that it can waive
sovereign immunity and then later rescind its
waiver). See Dept of Interior vy. South Dakota, 519
US. 919, 921 (1996) (Scalia, J., dissenting from deci-
sion to grant, vacate, and remand) (“The Solicitor
General now represents to us that it is the position of
the Department of the Interior, as well as that of the
Department of Justice, that judicial review of an IRA
land trust acquisition may be obtained by filing suit
within the 30-day waiting period, although action
will continue to be barred by the QTA after the
United States formally acquires title.”), The gov-
ernment’s approach, in other words, holds out to citi-
zens the opportunity to bring a suit to challenge the
DOTrs decision to take land into trust but then, like
Lucy holding a football for Charlie Brown, pulls
away the opportunity once the suit commences.

Other circuits have disagreed with the Ninth
Circuit's decision in Hemet and have held (in the
context of Eleventh Amendment immunity) that “a
State may alter the conditions of waiver and apply

18

those changes to torpedo even pending litigation.”
Maysonet-Robles vy. Cabrero, 323 F.3d 43, 52 (1st Cir.
2003); see also Jowa Tribe of Kansas & Nebraska v.
Salazar, 607 F.3d 1225, 1232 (10th Cir. 2010); but
see 16 JAMES WM. MOORE ET AL., MOORE'S FEDERAL
PRACTICE 105.21[4] (“The Ninth Circuit has the far
better of the argument.”). These circuits relied on
Beers v. State, 61 U.S. 527 (1857), where this Court,
in the context of state sovereign immunity, said that
a sovereign “may withdraw its consent whenever it
may suppose that justice to the public requires it.”
/d. at 529. But the government cannot contend that
“justice to the public” requires withdrawing its
waiver under these circumstances.

First, Congress has indicated, through the APA's
waiver, that justice requires that parties aggrieved
by an agency action should be allowed judicial re-
view. That is why Congress waived sovereign im-
munity under the APA in the first place. 5 U.S.C.
§ 702 (“A person suffering legal wrong because of
agency action, or adversely affected or aggrieved by
agency action within the meaning of a relevant stat-
ute, is entitled to judicial review thereof.”); see also
Senate Report 3, 7 (‘explaining that Congress waived
sovereign immunity in the APA to foster “the princi-
ples of accountability and responsive Government”
and to avoid “the unnecessary injustice cause by
sovereign immunity™).

Second, DOI has specifically recognized the need
to protect the interests of the public by allowing for
judicial review of its decisions to take land into trust
for Indian tribes. Land Acquisitions, 61 Fed. Reg.
18,082, 18,082 (Apr. 24, 1996) (codified at 25 C_F_R.

$151.12) (establishing “a procedure to ensure the
seoattuatiy tut tediatah tovlow af sduintennatins dee

19

cisions to acquire land in trust for Indian tribes

..”). Before adopting 25 C.F.R. § 151.12, the DOI
could purportedly avoid judicial review of its land-in-
trust decisions by reaching a final determination and
immediately taking the land in trust. See Dept of
Interior, 519 U.S. at 920 (Scalia, J., dissenting from
decision to grant, vacate, and remand). That is why
DOI created a window between the final agency de-
termination and the actual taking of the land into
trust during which an APA challenge could be
brought (as Patchak did here). 25 C.F.R. § 151.12(b);
see also Notice of Determination, 70 Fed. Reg. at
25,596 (“The purpose of the 30-day waiting period in
25 CFR 151.12(b) is to afford interested parties the
opportunity to seek judicial review of the final ad-
ministrative decisions to take land in trust for Indian
tribes ... before the transfer of title to the property
occurs.”).

The possibility of judicial review—described by
members of this Court as ‘reviewability-at-the-
pleasure-of-the-Secretary,” Dep't of Interior, 519 U.S.
at 920 (Scalia, J., dissenting from decision to grant,
vacate, and remand)—is largely illusory if the gov-
ernment can override the APA waiver simply by tak-
ing the land into trust. The only way it is not illu-
sory is if the plaintiff files early enough in the 30-day
window to have time to persuade a court to issue a
stay before the government can take the land into
trust. But the possibility that the judiciary may in-
tervene in time to stay the executive’s hand does not
diminish the unfairness of the government’s ap-
proach. As one commentator has put it, “The gov-
ernment has the right not to be sued; it does not
have the right to induce plaintiffs to invest time,
money, and effort in a litigation, only to find that
well along in the process, the government has

20

changed its mind.” 16 MOORE'S FEDERAL PRACTICE
§ 105.21([4].

In any event, the “time of filing” sovereign-
immunity issue has not been resolved by the D.C.
Circuit or the district court. Thus, unless this Court
addresses this so-far unreviewed issue, a decision re-
versing the court of appeals’ decision would not fi-
nally resolve the sovereign-immunity issue in this
case. This Court should therefore wait for a case
that presents the question on which the petitioners
seek review without the complication of a second
ground to oppose sovereign immunity that could ren-
der this Court’s decision without effect as to the par-
ties before it.

Il. The D.C. Circuit correctly held that the

Quiet Title Act’s sovereign-immunity bar

did not apply because Patchak did not

bring a quiet-title claim

As noted above, the APA broadly waives sover-

eign immunity for challenges to administrative deci-
sions, like the DOI’s decision to take land into trust.
The APA then limits this waiver, stating that it does
not “confer{] authority to grant relief if any other
statute that grants consent to suit expressly or im-
pliedly forbids the relief which is sought.” 5 U.S.C.
§ 702. Petitioners contend that the Quiet Title Act
applies to this action and forbids the relief sought.
The Quiet Title Act contains a broad waiver of sover-
eign immunity for quiet-title actions, but carves out
land-in-trust decisions for Indian tribes from the
general waiver. Although petitioners contend the
Quiet Title Act applies to Patchak’s claims, the plain
language of the Act shows that Patchak has not as-
serted an action to quiet title. Thus, petitioners are
left to argue that the Quiet Title Act impliedly bars

21

Patchak’s suit. But petitioners’ argument is illogical.
It requires the Quiet Title Act’s carve-out preserving
sovereign immunity for land taken into trust for In-
dian tribes to be broader than the Quiet Title Act’s
waiver of sovereign tmmunity. The D.C. Circuit cor-
rectly reasoned, consistent with this Court’s opin-
ions, that “the terms of the Quiet Title Act do not
cover Patchak’s suit,” and “[hl]is action therefore falls
within the general waiver of sovereign immunity set
forth in § 702 of the APA.” DOI Pet. App. 21a.

A. The decision below is consistent with
both the Quiet Title Act and this
Court’s decisions

The Quiet Title Act, as its name suggests, allows
plaintiffs to bring quiet-title actions against the gov-
ernment. The D.C. Circuit correctly analyzed the
statutory text and concluded its sovereign-immunity
rules apply only to suits that could be brought under
the Act.

First, the Quiet Title Act waives sovereign im-
munity by allowing the United States to be named as
a party defendant “in a civil action under this section
to adjudicate a disputed title to real property in
which the United States claims an interest.” 28
U.S.C. § 2409a(a) (emphasis added). The exception
to waiver that the government contends applies here
is also specifically limited to claims brought under
§ 2409a: “This section does not apply to trust or re-
stricted Indian lands.” Jd.

Second, the Quiet Title Act’s pleading require-
ment spells out what civil actions can be brought un-
der it: “The complaint shall set forth with particu-
larity the nature of the right, title, or interest which
the plaintiff claims in the real property, [and] the

22

circumstance under which it was acquired.” 28
U.S.C. § 2409a(d) (emphasis added). In other words,
civil actions brought under the Act are specifically
limited to actions by plaintiffs who—unlike
Patchak—are seeking to quiet title in themselves.
See DOI Pet. App. 14a—-1da.

Third, the text of § 2409a(b) provides that the
United States may retain possession of the disputed
property even if it loses a quiet-title action so long as
it makes “payment to the person determined to be
entitled thereto of an amount” that the district court
determines “to be just compensation” for possession
or control of the property. This provision further
highlights that actions under this section involve
claims of ownership; otherwise there would be no
need for “just compensation” or a person “entitled
thereto.” See DOI Pet. App. 16a.

Nothing in this Court’s decisions in Block v.
North Dakota, 461 U.S. 273 (1983), or United States
v. Mottaz, 476 U.S. 834 (1986), requires a different
outcome. Those cases both involved traditional
quiet-title actions—actions by plaintiffs who claimed
an ownership interest in property adverse to the
United States’ claim of title to the property. In
Block, “the United States and North Dakota as-
sert(ed] competing claims to title to certain portions
of the bed of the Little Missouri River within North
Dakota.” 461 U.S. at 277. North Dakota asserted a
traditional quiet-title claim. This is borne out by the
holding in Block. “We hold that Congress intended
the QTA to provide the exclusive means by which
adverse claimants could challenge the United States’
title to real property.” Jd. at 286 (emphasis added).
In Mottaz, the plaintiff had inherited interests in
several parcels on a reservation, and asserted title to

23

the lands in dispute: “What respondent seeks is a
declaration that she alone possesses valid title to her
interests in the [parcels of land] and that the title
asserted by the United States is defective.” 476 U.S.
at 842 (holding that the Quiet Title Act’s 12-year
statute of limitations barred her claim). Thus, both
of these cases addressed traditional quiet-title ac-
tions. See DOI Pet. App. 18a.

The petitioners nevertheless contend that the
Quiet Title Act applies and overrides the APA’s
waiver of sovereign immunity because § 702 does not
“confer{] authority to grant relief if any other statute
that grants consent to suit expressly or impliedly
forbids the relief which is sought.” 5 U.S.C. § 702.
But such a prohibition is “not lightly to be inferred.”
Barlow v. Collins, 397 U.S. 159, 166 (1970). “Judicial
review of administrative action is the rule, and non-
reviewability an exception . . . [which must be shown
by] ‘clear and convincing evidence of a contrary legis-
lative intent.” J/d. at 166-67 (citation omitted).

The government argues that the legislative his-
tory of the APA—particularly a letter written by
then-Assistant Attorney General Scalia concerning
the phrase “expressly or impliedly forbids the relief
which is sought”—confirms that the Quiet Title Act
impliedly bars suits like Patchak’s. DOI Pet. 10—11.
But as explained above, Patchak is not bringing suit
under the Quiet Title Act. For the carve out preserv-
ing sovereign immunity for Indian tribe land-in-trust
decisions to impliedly bar Patchak’s suit, the carve
out must be interpreted to be broader than the Quiet
Title Act’s waiver of sovereign immunity. Nothing in
the statutory text requires this illogical result.

Likewise, the legislative history of the APA un-
dermines the government’s argument. The word

24

“impliedly” was reportedly added to § 702 because
the existence of a general sovereign immunity before
1976 meant that pre-1976 statutes (such as the 1972
Quiet Title Act) had no reason to expressly forbid re-
lief against the United States. This in turn meant
that “in most if not all cases where statutory reme-
dies already exist, these remedies will be exclusive.”
Id. (citation omitted). The fact that statutory reme-
dies are exclusive reinforces the point that the statu-
tory text governs and that Patchak’s suit, which
could not be brought under the Quiet Title Act, is not
impliedly covered by the Quiet Title Act’s immunity
provisions. As explained in the legislative history,
when the statute Congress has passed “is not ad-
dressed to the type of grievance which the plaintiff
seeks to assert”—here, Patchak’s suit that does not
assert a quiet-title claim—"suit would be allowed.”
Senate Report 27. Put another way, this legislative
history for § 702 of the APA does not show, as the
government would have it, that the Quiet Title Act
impliedly bars actions that do not qualify as quiet-
title actions. Consequently, the D.C. Circuit cor-
rectly concluded that the Quiet Title Action does not
apply, and that Patchak’s action falls within the
APA’s genera! waiver.

B. The conflict is new and should be
given more time to develop now that
9 court of appeals has, for the first
ame, focused on the Quiet Title Act’s
text

Although other circuits have concluded that the
Quiet Title Act impliedly forbids parties from bring-
ing APA suits to challenge the DOI’s decision to take
land into trust, those decisions are not consistent
with the text of the Quiet Title Act. See DOI Pet.

25

App. 2la (“The courts of appeals mentioned above
have extended the reach of the Quiet Title Act be-
yond its text.”).

In Florida Department of Business Regulation v.
Department of Interior, 768 F.2d 1248 (11th Cir.
1985), the Eleventh Circuit—the first circuit to rule
on this issue—never addressed § 2409a(d)’s require-
ment that the plaintiff claim “right, title, or interest

. in the real property,” and even admitted that
“technically the suit in the instant case [was] not one
to quiet title.” Jd. at 1254. Instead, the Eleventh
Circuit based its conclusion on the policies it found
underlying the Quiet Title Act, not on the language
of the Act. The court of appeals also relied on its be-
lief that under the IRA the DOI had such unlimited
discretion to take land into trust for a tribe that any
decision would be essentially unreviewable, id at
1256—57, failing to note the temporal limit that Car-
cierl recognizes as limiting the DOI’s discretion—
that only tribes under federal jurisdiction in 1934 are
eligible to have land taken into trust for them. The
Ninth Circuit’s decision in Metropolitan Water Dis-
trict of Southern California v. United States, 830
F.2d 139 (9th Cir. 1987), aff'd by an equally divided
Court sub. nom. California v. United States, 490 U.S.
920 (1989), also never addressed § 2409a(d)’s statu-
tory requirement that the plaintiff be an adverse
claimant and instead focused simply on a policy ar-
gument, citing Florida Department of Business De-
velopment. Id. at 143-44. The Tenth Circuit also
tracked the Eleventh Circuit’s policy-based analysis.
Neighbors for Rational Dev. v. Norton, 379 F.3d 956,
962 (10th Cir. 2004) (discussing Florida Department
of Business Development). And although the Tenth
Circuit at least mentioned the pleading requirements
of § 2409a(d), it mentioned them only to say that

26

“plaintiffs cannot circumvent the intent of the Quiet
Title Act's limitations with artful pleading.” /¢@ ai
965. But ignoring the Act's express pleading limita-
tions, as the Tenth Circuit did, is not the way to ef-
fectuate those limitations.

This circuit split is new, created by the D.C. Cir-
cuit’s decision. Now that a circuit has reached a de-
cision based on the text of the Quiet Title Act and not
allow more time for other circuits to address the is-
sue and weigh the competing arguments. Further-
more, to the extent that national uniformity is im-
portant, petitioners themselves admit that uniform-
ity can be achieved by the fact that APA suits can be
brought in the D.C. Cireuit. DOI Pet. 16. In short,
because the D.C. Circuit is correct and can provide
uniformity on this issue, there is no need for this
Court's review.

Beyond that, the government’s arguments about
the adverse consequences of this decision are over-
D.C. Cireuit’s decision, all land-in-trust decisions are
forever subject to attack. First of all, Patchak sued
raise the specter of post Aoc attacks initiated years
after the land was taken into trust. Second, actions
challenging taking land into trust are subject to tra-
ditional defenses including the APA's own statute of
limitations. See 28 U.S.C. § 240l\(a); cf. Delano
Farms Co. v. Cal. Table Grape Comm'n, 655 F 3d
1337, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2011).

The government further argues that the decision
will “severely disrupt the Secretary's acquisition of
trust lands for Indians” because “[ajny plaintiff seek-
ing to sue the Secretary can obtain venue in the

27

United States District Court for the District of Co-
lumbia, 28 U.S.C. 1391(e), and in light of the decision
below, there is little reason for a plaintiff to bring a
case anywhere else.” DOI Pet. 16. Ten months have
passed since the D.C. Circuit issued its opinion, but
no new cases have been filed against the Secretary of
the Interior relating to lands already held in trust for
Indian tribes. Moreover, the very incentive the gov-
ernment claims was created by the D.C. Circuit's de-
cision has existed for 35 years without the disruption
the government fears.

In 1978, the District Court for the District of Co-
lumbia addressed the situation where, as here, a
plaintiff brought suit under § 702 of the APA w chal-
lenge the DOT's decision to take land into trust for an
Indian tribe, arguing that the Sault Ste. Marie tribe
was not a tribe within the meaning of the Quiet Title
Act. City of Sault Ste. Marie v. Andrus, 458 F. Supp.
465, 467 (D.D.C. 1978). The district court, noting
that § 2409a of the Quiet Title Act requires a plain-
tiff “to state with particularity the nature of the
right, claim, or interest plaintiff possesses in the
property at issue,” rejected the government's claim
that the Quiet Title Act's sovereign-immunity provi-
sion barred the suit. /d at 471. As the court ex-
plained, because “plaintiffs do not possess the type of
property right which would be necessary for the
maintenance of a quiet title action, it is clear that 28
U.S.C. [§] 2409a is inapplicable to this suit, and may
not, therefore, force dismissal of this suit due to the
doctrine of sovereign immunity.” /d@ at 472. In other
exact incentive that the government claims now
causes a significant adverse consequence. Plaintiffs
have continued to bring suits elsewhere, as evi-
denced by the decisions cited as creating a circuit

28

split—a 1985 decision by the Eleventh Circuit, a
1987 decision by the Ninth Circuit, and a 2004 deci-
sion by the Tenth Circuit.

This issue does not warrant the Court's review at
this time.

not conflict with this Court's decisions,

implicate a circuit split, or warrant this

Court’s review

The petitioners contend that Patchak falls out-

side the zone of interests arguably protected by § 465
of the IRA, the provision on which Patchak based his
suit, because Patchak’s asserted injuries focus on the
use the land will be put to, rather than some other
harm from the DOTs decision to take land into trust.
But as the D.C. Circuit explained, § 465 covers inter-
ests like Patchak’s.

For one, Patchak did not need to show that § 465
of the IRA was meant to benefit those in his situa-
tion. In National Credit Union Administration v.
First National Bank & Trust Co.. 522 US. 479
(1998), the Court explained that it does “not ask
whether, in enacting the statutory provision at issue,
Congress specifically intended to benefit the plain-
tiff.” Jd at 492. Instead the Court “first discern/s)
the interests ‘arguably to be protected’ by the statu-
tory provision at issue,” and “then inquire|s] whether
the plaintiff's interests affected by the agency action
in question are among them.” /d For another, the
zone-of-interests test also includes within its scope
those who can be expected to challenge a provision.
Clarke, 479 US. at 398 (“The essential inquiry is
whether Congress ‘intended for [a particular) class

29

(of plaintiffs} to be relied upon to challenge agency
disregard of the law.™)

In Carcieri, the Court interpreted § 465 and
$ 467 to limit the DOT s discretion to take land into
trust for Indians. 129 S. Ct. at 1064-66. The fact
that the statute limits the DOT's discretion demon-
strates that § 465 at least arguably exists to protect
the interests of the community that would be af-
fected if the land were taken into trust, for members
of the community make up part of the class that can
be relied upon to challenge land-in-trust decisions.

This interpretation is supported by the DOI's
own regulations under § 465 of the IRA, which spe-
cifically require the Secretary to consider both “|tjhe
purposes for which the land will be used” and “poten-
tial conflicts of land use” when deciding whether to
take land into trust. 25 C.F.R. § 151.10(c), (f). And
the DOI farther recognizes that its decision to take
the land into trust affects the surrounding commu-
nity—i.e., people like Patchak—by providing “af-
fected members of the public” with notice before the
land is taken into trust so that they can seek judicial
review under the APA. Land Acquisitions, 61 Fed.
Reg. 18,082; 25 C.F.R. § 151.12(b). The government
says nothing in its petition to explain why the DOI
thinks land use is directly relevant under these regu-
lations promulgated under § 465 yet not an interest
even “arguably within the zone of interests to be pro-
tected” by the APA’s “generous review provisions.”
Clarke, 479 U.S. at 395-96.

Not only is the decision below consistent with
this Court’s decisions, it does not conflict with the
decisions of other circuits. The first evidence of this
is that the government does not allege a circuit split
on the prudential-standing issue. DOI Pet. at 18—23.

30

And all of the cases the Band cites are distinguish-
able. For example. the Eighth Circuit in Rosebud
Sioux Tribe v. McDivitt, 286 F.3d 1031 ‘8th Cir.
2002), releed on statutes that the court of appeals
thought were “intended to protect only Native
American interests.” Jd at 1036-37. Here, however,
this Court has recognized that § 465 of the IRA is in-
tended to be a limitation on the government's ability
to take land inte trust for Indians. Carcieri, 129 S.
Ct. at 1067 n.7 (“1 Wle conclude that the language of
$465 unambiguously precludes the Secretary’s ac-
tion with respect to the parcel of land at issue in this
case.”). The Sixth and Seventh Circuit decisions the
Band relies on addressed situations where the inter-
est asserted was “at odds with the concerns of the
provision in issue,” Jonida Trucking, Inc. v. Hunt,
124 F.3d 739, 742 (6th Cir. 1997), or “inconsistent”
with the relevant provisions, Courtney v. Smith, 297
F 3d 455, 464, 466 (6th Cir. 2002); Am. Fedn of Govt
Employees v. Cohen, 171 F.3d 460, 471 (7th Cir.
1999). But again, § 465 imposes a limitation on the
Secretary, and Patchak’s suit seeking to enforce that
limitation is consistent with the purposes of the
Statute.

In short, the Secretary's own procedures for tak-
ing land into trust under § 465 acknowledge that
placing the land in trust affects the interests of the
surrounding community. The D.C. Circuit's recogni-
tion that Patchak is arguably within that zone of in-
terests was correct, consistent with the decisions of
this Court, and consistent with the decisions of its

sister circuits. The prudential-standing issue also
does not warrant this Court's review.

31

For these reasons, the petitions for a writ of cer-
Respectfully submitted.
DANIEL P. ETTINGER
Counsel of Record
MATTHEW T. NELSON
AARON D. LINDSTROM

NICOLE L. MAzzocco
WARNER Norcross & Jupp LLP

Counsel for Respondent David Patchak
November 9, 2011

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385015_0740%3A03. Public record. Not legal advice.