MATCH-E-BE-NASH-SHE-WISH BAND OF POTTAWATOMI INDIANS V. PATCHAK
132 S.Ct. 2199 (2012)
NATURE OF THE CASE: Match (D) appealed a reversal of a lower court decision by the
District of Columbia Circuit Court in favor of Patchak (P) upholding his ability to
challenge D's actions.
FACTS: The casebook was concerned only with the standing issue. The
Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish band of Pottawatomi Indians (D) is an Indian tribe residing in
rural Michigan. The Department of the Interior formally recognized it only in 1999. D
petitioned the Secretary to exercise her authority under § 465 by taking into trust a tract
of land in Wayland Township, Michigan, known as the Bradley Property. The Band's application
explained that the Band would use the property “for gaming purposes,” with the goal of
generating the “revenue necessary to promote tribal economic development, self-sufficiency
and a strong tribal government capable of providing its members with sorely needed social
and educational programs.” After a lengthy administrative review, the Secretary announced
her decision to acquire the Bradley Property in trust for the Band. An organization called
Michigan Gambling Opposition (or MichGO) filed suit alleging that the Secretary's decision
violated environmental and gaming statutes. A District Court and the D.C. Circuit rejected
MichGO's claims. Shortly after the D. C. Circuit ruled against MichGO (but still before the
Secretary took title), P filed this suit under the APA advancing a different legal theory. P
asserted that § 465 did not authorize the Secretary to acquire property for D because it was
not a federally recognized tribe when the IRA was enacted in 1934. To establish his standing
to bring suit, P contended that he lived “in close proximity to” the Bradley Property and
that a casino there would “destroy the lifestyle he has enjoyed” by causing “increased
traffic,” “increased crime,” “decreased property values,” “an irreversible change in the
rural character of the area,” and “other aesthetic, socioeconomic, and environmental
problems.” P did not assert any claim of his own to the Bradley Property. D intervened in
the suit to defend the Secretary's decision. The District Court dismissed the suit ruling
that P lacked prudential standing to challenge the acquisition. The court reasoned that the
injuries P alleged fell outside § 465's “zone of interests.” The D. C. Circuit reversed. The
Supreme Court certiorari.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment