COURTHOUSE NEWS
June 18, 2012
Casino Challenger Has a Case, High Court Finds
(CN) - A Michigan man can sue the government and
an American Indian tribe over their plans to build a casino near his property,
the Supreme Court ruled Monday.
David Patchak filed suit over the negative effects of a proposed casino that would occupy 147 acres of his rural farming community in Wayland Township, Mich., referred to as the Bradley Tract.
His complaint notes that the casino would bring an estimated 3.1 million visitors yearly, divert medical resources from residents, increase crime and contribute to air, noise and water pollution. Patchak further claims that the casino would destroy the area's rural character, diminish property values and sully the local scenery.
The government had taken the land into trust for a band of Pottawatomi, known as the Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish or Gun Lake Band, which owned the property and wanted to build a casino there.
Since the Gun Lake Band was not under federal jurisdiction during the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, however, Patchak says the government's actions would violate the National Environmental Policy Act and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.
A federal judge agreed that trust authority is limited to tribes under jurisdiction in 1934, but dismissed Patchak's suit on different grounds. The court noted that Patchak lacks prudential standing to challenge the authority of Department of the Interior Secretary Kenneth Salazar since his Patchak's interests "actively run contrary" to the Indian Reorganization Act. It also noted that the government may have pre-empted Patchak's claims under Quiet Title by taking the land into trust.
But in January 2011, the D.C. Circuit foundthat Patchak had a triable claim under
the Administrative Procedures Act.
The three-judge panel noted that "it would
be very strange to deny Patchak standing in this case."
"His stake in opposing the Band's casino is intense and obvious," Judge A. Raymond Randolph wrote.
"His stake in opposing the Band's casino is intense and obvious," Judge A. Raymond Randolph wrote.
The zone-of-interests test of the IRA is supposed to "weed out
litigants who lack a sufficient interest in the controversy."
"Patchak is
surely not in that category," the ruling states.
Since Patchak did not sue
for monetary damages and filed a claim relating to the government's actions
"under color of legal authority," the Administrative Procedures Act states that
the government does not have immunity from the suit.
Randolph also found that
the Quiet Title Act of 1972 cannot bar the suit since Patchak did not claim that
he owned the land. This law "reflects a congressional policy of honoring the
federal government's solemn obligations to Indians with respect to title
disputes over Indian trust land," according to the court.
The Supreme Court
affirmed Monday, having consolidated two related petitions over the
case in December.
Judge Elena Kagan authored the court's lead opinion. Judge Sonia Sotomayor alone dissented.
Posts
1 comment:
Get to the meeting Wednesday with the BIA and give them your comments .Let your voice be heard.
Post a Comment