Gun Lake Court Case Study

Words: 1229
Pages: 5

Petitioner, David Patchak, debates the constitutional validity of the Gun Lake Act as a violation of the separation of powers doctrine and as a violation of the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause in the case Patchak v. Zinke. On April 18, 2005 the Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians, also known as the Gun Lake Tribe, was granted the Bradley Property, as a trust, under the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934. The Petitioner, David Patchak, lives in close proximity to this land and found that the construction of a future casino would cause him direct injury including expected increases in property taxes, traffic, and the change in the rural atmosphere of his home. The Petitioner then filed claim against the Secretary of the Interior, arguing to the District Court under the Administrative Procedure Act. When first taken to the District Court in August 2009 the District Court at first, found that Patchak lacked standing, and that the APA violation was insufficient. However, the Court’s opinion was reversed on appeal, due to the case or controversy clause found in Article III, and Patchak was granted standing. That case, now to be called Patchak I, was later dismissed due to Congress passing the Gun Lake Act. For the reasons that follow, this Court should affirm the argument of the Petitioner due to blatant violation of the United States Constitution. …show more content…
Does the Gun Lake Act that states that any legal action relating to the Bradley Property “shall not be filed or maintained in a Federal court and shall be promptly dismissed”, but does not amend the underlying fundamental or procedural laws, violate the Constitution’s separation of powers