What happened? 

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed on Monday to jointly hear two petitions over a decision by the federal government to take the Bradley Tract, a parcel of Indian-owned land in Michigan, into trust. The petitions were brought by Interior Secretary Kenneth Salazar and by the Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band, an Indian group that asked the secretary to take its land into trust so they could establish a casino on it.

How did this issue arise? 

In May 2005, the Interior Department said it would take the Bradley Tract into trust. Litigation brought by an anti-gambling group delayed the implementation of the transaction. The current suit began in 2008 when David Patchak, a private individual who lives near the Bradley Tract, filed a complaint with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia alleging that a casino would destroy the peace and quiet of the area and create pollution.

In August 2009, the district court dismissed Patchak's case. In January 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, overturned that decision and remanded the case to the district court. Salazar and the Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band then made an interlocutory petition to the U.S. Supreme Court, a move that Patchak opposed.

What did the district court decide? 

U.S. District Court Judge Richard Leon dismissed Patchak's case, finding that he lacked prudential standing under a "zone-of-interests" test that the U.S. Supreme Court introduced in the 1970 case, Association of Data Processing Service Organizations v Camp. The test requires that the plaintiff, in addition to having constitutional standing under Article III, must also seek to protect an interest that "is arguably within the zone of interests to be protected or regulated by the statute."

Leon found that Patchak had no interest the Indian Reorganization Act, which serves "to protect, and promote, tribal self-determination and economic independence."

What did the appeals court decide? 

In January 2011, the D.C. Circuit Court reversed, finding that Patchak did have prudential standing. In a unanimous decision, the three-judge panel found that Patchak's prudential standing flowed from the limits imposed by the IRA, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Carcieri v Salazar. In Carcieri, a 2009 Indian land case in Rhode Island, the Supreme Court found the Secretary's authority under the IRA was limited to Indian tribes under federal jurisdiction in 1934.

The circuit court found Carcieri put limitations on the Secretary's authority to put property into trust for the purposes of gaming, and that those limitations offered protection from gaming to those near a proposed casino. As a result, the court found that members of the surrounding community, like Patchak, were well-positioned to police the federal government's actions under the IRA.

Finding that Patchak had standing, the court then considered whether the federal government was nonetheless immune from suit. The court found that a waiver of sovereign immunity under Section 702 of the Administrative Procedure Act would apply to this case provided that the Quiet Title Act, which prohibits such waivers in Indian trust cases, did not bar it.

Rejecting the claim of Secretary Salazar, the court found that Patchak had not brought his suit under the Quiet Title Act. Creating a split with the jurisprudence of the 9th, 10th and 11th circuits, the court found that the Quiet Title Act only deals with plaintiffs claiming ownership (as opposed to other interests) over land. Because Patchak had no ownership interest in the Bradley Tract, the court found that the Quiet Title Act did not apply. As a result it concluded that the federal government was not immune from Patchak's suit. The court reversed the district court and remanded the case.

What is the question before the U.S. Supreme Court? 

Can prudential standing be based on the plaintiff's ability to police an agency's compliance with the Indian Reorganization Act? Does the waiver of sovereign immunity under Section 702 of the Administrative Procedure Act apply in a suit against the federal government over Indian trust land?

What happens next? 

The Supreme Court will schedule a date for hearing oral arguments in the case.

The cases are Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians v. Patchak, U.S. Supreme Court, no. 11-246 and Salazar v. Patchak, U.S. Supreme Court, no. 11-247.

For the Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band: Patricia Millett of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld.

For Salazar: Donald Verrilli, U.S. Solicitor General.

For Patchak: David Ettinger of Warner Norcross & Judd.

(Reporting by Rebecca Hamilton)

Follow us on Twitter: @ReutersLegal