ads@blueearthmarketing.com   712.224.5420

Litigation
Turtle Talk: Ironies of the Supreme Court's land-into-trust ruling


"Here are some interesting ironies of the reasoning and outcome in Patchak.

First, the prudential standing of David Patchak to sue the federal government to protect the rural character of his community (and related objections) — under Michigan law (I think) Patchak would have a much more difficult proof than he does under the conglomeration of statutes Patchak is using (APA, QTA, and I guess IGRA). Just a few weeks ago, the Michigan Court of Appeals (Tobin v City of Frankfort — thanks to B.A. for pointing this one out for me) rejected the standing of a landowner to challenge a development in Benzie County.

Second, the land development question — Gun Lake Casino is up and running, and the State of Michigan and the local units of government (well, and the Tribe), are raking in millions upon millions. Patchak wants that to end (because apparently he didn’t care that Wayland’s football players were under a pay-to-play arrangement; more details here)."

Get the Story:
Ironies of the Patchak Decision (Turtle Talk 6/26)

Supreme Court Decision:
Salazar v. Patchak (June 18, 2012)

Related Stories:
IPR: Supreme Court decision seen as setback for Indian Country (6/22)