(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2011 1 

Syllabus 

NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is

being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.

The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been

prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. 

See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

MATCH-E-BE-NASH-SHE-WISH BAND OF 

POTTAWATOMI INDIANS v. PATCHAK ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR 

THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT 

No. 11–246. Argued April 24, 2012—Decided June 18, 2012* 

The Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) authorizes the Secretary of the

Interior to acquire property “for the purpose of providing land to Indians.” 25 U. S. C. §465. Petitioner Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish 

Band of Pottawatomi Indians (Band), an Indian tribe federally recognized in 1999, requested that the Secretary take into trust on its behalf a tract of land known as the Bradley Property, which the Band 

intended to use “for gaming purposes.” The Secretary took title to 

the Bradley Property in 2009. Respondent David Patchak, who lives

near the Bradley Property, filed suit under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), asserting that §465 did not authorize the Secretary

to acquire the property because the Band was not a federally recognized tribe when the IRA was enacted in 1934. Patchak alleged a variety of economic, environmental, and aesthetic harms as a result of

the Band’s proposed use of the property to operate a casino, and requested injunctive and declaratory relief reversing the Secretary’s

decision to take title to the land. The Band intervened to defend the 

Secretary’s decision. The District Court did not reach the merits of 

Patchak’s suit, but ruled that he lacked prudential standing to challenge the Secretary’s acquisition of the Bradley Property. The D. C. 

Circuit reversed and also rejected the Secretary’s and the Band’s alternative argument that sovereign immunity barred the suit. 

Held: 

1. The United States has waived its sovereign immunity from 

—————— 

*Together with No. 11–247, Salazar, Secretary of the Interior, et al. v. 

Patchak et al., also on certiorari to the same court. 
 

2 MATCH-E-BE-NASH-SHE-WISH BAND OF POTTAWATOMI 

INDIANS v. PATCHAK
 

Syllabus
 

Patchak’s action. The APA’s general waiver of the Federal Government’s immunity from suit does not apply “if any other statute that

grants consent to suit expressly or impliedly forbids the relief which 

is sought” by the plaintiff. 5 U. S. C. §702. The Government and 

Band contend that the Quiet Title Act (QTA) is such a statute. The 

QTA authorizes (and so waives the Government’s sovereign immunity from) a suit by a plaintiff asserting a “right, title, or interest” in

real property that conflicts with a “right, title, or interest” the United

States claims. 28 U. S. C. §2409a(d). But it contains an exception for 

“trust or restricted Indian lands.” §2409a(a). 

To determine whether the “Indian lands” exception bars Patchak’s

suit, the Court considers whether the QTA addresses the kind of 

grievance Patchak advances. It does not, because Patchak’s action is 

not a quiet title action. The QTA, from its title to its jurisdictional

grant to its venue provision, speaks specifically and repeatedly of

“quiet title” actions, a term universally understood to refer to suits in

which a plaintiff not only challenges someone else’s claim, but also

asserts his own right to disputed property. Although Patchak’s suit 

contests the Secretary’s title, it does not claim any competing interest

in the Bradley Property.

Contrary to the argument of the Band and Government, the QTA 

does not more broadly encompass any “civil action . . . to adjudicate a

disputed title to real property in which the United States claims an 

interest.” §2409(a). Rather, §2409a includes a host of indications

that the “civil action” at issue is an ordinary quiet title suit. The 

Band and Government also contend that the QTA’s specific authorization of adverse claimants’ suits creates the negative implication 

that non-claimants like Patchak cannot challenge Government ownership of land under any statute. That argument is faulty for the

reason already given: Patchak is bringing a different claim, seeking

different relief, from the kind the QTA addresses. Finally, the Band

and Government argue that Patchak’s suit should be treated the

same as an adverse claimant’s because both equally implicate the 

“Indian lands” exception’s policies. That argument must be addressed to Congress. The “Indian lands” exception reflects Congress’s

judgment about how far to allow quiet title suits—not all suits challenging the Government’s ownership of property. Pp. 4−14. 

2. Patchak has prudential standing to challenge the Secretary’s acquisition. A person suing under the APA must assert an interest

that is “arguably within the zone of interests to be protected or regulated by the statute” that he says was violated. Association of Data 

Processing Service Organizations, Inc. v. Camp, 397 U. S. 150, 153. 

The Government and Band claim that Patchak’s economic, environmental, and aesthetic injuries are not within §465’s zone of interests 
Cite as: 567 U. S. ____ (2012) 3 

Syllabus 

because the statute focuses on land acquisition, while Patchak’s injuries relate to the land’s use as a casino. However, §465 has far more

to do with land use than the Government and Band acknowledge. 

Section 465 is the capstone of the IRA’s land provisions, and functions as a primary mechanism to foster Indian tribes’ economic development. The Secretary thus takes title to properties with an eye toward how tribes will use those lands to support such development. 

The Department’s regulations make this statutory concern with land 

use clear, requiring the Secretary to acquire land with its eventual

use in mind, after assessing potential conflicts that use might create. 

And because §465 encompasses land’s use, neighbors to the use (like 

Patchak) are reasonable―indeed, predictable―challengers of the Secretary’s decisions: Their interests, whether economic, environmental, 

or aesthetic, come within §465’s regulatory ambit. Pp. 14–18. 

632 F. 3d 702, affirmed and remanded. 

KAGAN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, 

C. J., and SCALIA, KENNEDY, THOMAS, GINSBURG, BREYER, and ALITO, 

JJ., joined. SOTOMAYOR, J., filed a dissenting opinion. 
 

 

_________________ 

_________________ 

Cite as: 567 U. S. ____ (2012) 1 

Opinion of the Court 

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the

preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to

notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order

that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Nos. 11–246 and 11–247 

MATCH-E-BE-NASH-SHE-WISH BAND OF 

POTTAWATOMI INDIANS, PETITIONER 

11–246 v. 

DAVID PATCHAK ET AL. 

KEN L. SALAZAR, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, 

ET AL., PETITIONERS 

11–247 v. 

DAVID PATCHAK ET AL. 

ON WRITS OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 

APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT 

[June 18, 2012]

 JUSTICE KAGAN delivered the opinion of the Court. 

A provision of the Indian Reorganization Act (IRA), 25

U. S. C. §465, authorizes the Secretary of the Interior

(Secretary) to acquire property “for the purpose of providing land for Indians.” Ch. 576, §5, 48 Stat. 985. The 

Secretary here acquired land in trust for an Indian tribe 

seeking to open a casino. Respondent David Patchak lives

near that land and challenges the Secretary’s decision in

a suit brought under the Administrative Procedure Act 

(APA), 5 U. S. C. §701 et seq. Patchak claims that the 

Secretary lacked authority under §465 to take title to the 

land, and alleges economic, environmental, and aesthetic 

harms from the casino’s operation.

We consider two questions arising from Patchak’s ac-
 

2 MATCH-E-BE-NASH-SHE-WISH BAND OF POTTAWATOMI 

INDIANS v. PATCHAK
 

Opinion of the Court 

tion. The first is whether the United States has sovereign 

immunity from the suit by virtue of the Quiet Title Act

(QTA), 86 Stat. 1176. We think it does not. The second is 

whether Patchak has prudential standing to challenge the 

Secretary’s acquisition. We think he does. We therefore 

hold that Patchak’s suit may proceed. 

I 

The Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi 

Indians (Band) is an Indian tribe residing in rural Michigan. Although the Band has a long history, the Department of the Interior (DOI) formally recognized it only in 

1999. See 63 Fed. Reg. 56936 (1998). Two years later,

the Band 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.” App. 52, 41.1 

In 2005, after a lengthy administrative review, the

Secretary announced her decision to acquire the Bradley 

Property in trust for the Band. See 70 Fed. Reg. 25596.

In accordance with applicable regulations, the Secretary

committed to wait 30 days before taking action, so that 

interested parties could seek judicial review. See ibid.; 25 

CFR §151.12(b) (2011). Within that window, an organization called Michigan Gambling Opposition (or MichGO) 

—————— 

1Under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, 25 U. S. C. §§2701–2721,

an Indian tribe may conduct gaming operations on “Indian lands,” 

§2710, which include lands “held in trust by the United States for the

benefit of any Indian tribe,” §2703(4)(B). The application thus requested the Secretary to take the action necessary for the Band to

open a casino. 
 

Cite as: 567 U. S. ____ (2012) 3 

Opinion of the Court 

filed suit alleging that the Secretary’s decision violated

environmental and gaming statutes. The Secretary held

off taking title to the property while that litigation proceeded. Within the next few years, a District Court and

the D. C. Circuit rejected MichGO’s claims. See Michigan 

Gambling Opposition v. Kempthorne, 525 F. 3d 23, 27–28 

(CADC 2008); Michigan Gambling Opposition v. Norton, 

477 F. Supp. 2d 1 (DC 2007). 

Shortly after the D. C. Circuit ruled against MichGO 

(but still before the Secretary took title), Patchak filed this 

suit under the APA advancing a different legal theory. He 

asserted that §465 did not authorize the Secretary to 

acquire property for the Band because it was not a federally recognized tribe when the IRA was enacted in 1934.

See App. 37. To establish his standing to bring suit, 

Patchak 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.” Id., at 30–31. Notably, Patchak did not assert any 

claim of his own to the Bradley Property. He requested

only a declaration that the decision to acquire the land

violated the IRA and an injunction to stop the Secretary

from accepting title. See id., at 38–39. The Band intervened in the suit to defend the Secretary’s decision. 

In January 2009, about five months after Patchak filed 

suit, this Court denied certiorari in MichGO’s case, 555 

U. S. 1137, and the Secretary took the Bradley Property 

into trust. That action mooted Patchak’s request for an

injunction to prevent the acquisition, and all parties agree 

that the suit now effectively seeks to divest the Federal 

Government of title to the land. See Brief for Match-E-BeNash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians 17 (hereinafter Tribal Petitioner); Brief for Federal Petitioners 11; 
 

 

4 MATCH-E-BE-NASH-SHE-WISH BAND OF POTTAWATOMI 

INDIANS v. PATCHAK
 

Opinion of the Court 

Brief for Respondent 24–25. The month after the Government took title, this Court held in Carcieri v. Salazar, 

555 U. S. 379, 382 (2009), that §465 authorizes the Secretary to take land into trust only for tribes that were “under federal jurisdiction” in 1934.2 

The District Court dismissed the suit without considering the merits (including the relevance of Carcieri), ruling 

that Patchak lacked prudential standing to challenge the 

Secretary’s acquisition of the Bradley Property. The court 

reasoned that the injuries Patchak alleged fell outside

§465’s “zone of interests.” 646 F. Supp. 2d 72, 76 (DC 

2009). The D. C. Circuit reversed that determination. See 

632 F. 3d 702, 704–707 (2011). The court also rejected the

Secretary’s and the Band’s alternative argument that 

by virtue of the QTA, sovereign immunity barred the suit.

See id., at 707–712. The latter ruling conflicted with

decisions of three Circuits holding that the United States 

has immunity from suits like Patchak’s. See Neighbors for 

Rational Development, Inc. v. Norton, 379 F. 3d 956, 961– 

962 (CA10 2004); Metropolitan Water Dist. of Southern Cal. v. United States, 830 F. 2d 139, 143–144 (CA9 

1987) (per curiam); Florida Dept. of Bus. Regulation v. 

Department of Interior, 768 F. 2d 1248, 1253–1255 (CA11 

1985). We granted certiorari to review both of the D. C. 

Circuit’s holdings, 565 U. S. ___ (2011), and we now

affirm. 

II 

We begin by considering whether the United States’ 

sovereign immunity bars Patchak’s suit under the APA. 

—————— 

2The merits of Patchak’s case are not before this Court. We therefore 

express no view on whether the Band was “under federal jurisdiction”

in 1934, as Carcieri requires. Nor do we consider how that question

relates to Patchak’s allegation that the Band was not “federally recognized” at the time. Cf. Carcieri, 555 U. S., at 397–399 (BREYER, J., 

concurring) (discussing this issue). 
 

Cite as: 567 U. S. ____ (2012) 5 

Opinion of the Court 

That requires us first to look to the APA itself and then,

for reasons we will describe, to the QTA. We conclude that 

the United States has waived its sovereign immunity from

Patchak’s action. 

The APA generally waives the Federal Government’s

immunity from a suit “seeking relief other than money 

damages and stating a claim that an agency or an officer 

or employee thereof acted or failed to act in an official

capacity or under color of legal authority.” 5 U. S. C. §702. 

That waiver would appear to cover Patchak’s suit, which

objects to official action of the Secretary and seeks only

non-monetary relief. But the APA’s waiver of immunity 

comes with an important carve-out: The waiver does not 

apply “if any other statute that grants consent to suit 

expressly or impliedly forbids the relief which is sought”

by the plaintiff. Ibid. That provision prevents plaintiffs

from exploiting the APA’s waiver to evade limitations on 

suit contained in other statutes. The question thus becomes whether another statute bars Patchak’s demand for 

relief. 

The Government and Band contend that the QTA does 

so. The QTA authorizes (and so waives the Government’s 

sovereign immunity from) a particular type of action,

known as a quiet title suit: a suit by a plaintiff asserting 

a “right, title, or interest” in real property that conflicts

with a “right, title, or interest” the United States claims.

28 U. S. C. §2409a(d). The statute, however, contains an 

exception: The QTA’s authorization of suit “does not apply 

to trust or restricted Indian lands.” §2409a(a). According 

to the Government and Band, that limitation on quiet title

suits satisfies the APA’s carve-out and so forbids Patchak’s 

suit. In the Band’s words, the QTA exception retains “the 

United States’ full immunity from suits seeking to challenge its title to or impair its legal interest in Indian trust 

lands.” Brief for Tribal Petitioner 18. 

Two hypothetical examples might help to frame consid-
 

 

 

6 MATCH-E-BE-NASH-SHE-WISH BAND OF POTTAWATOMI 

INDIANS v. PATCHAK
 

Opinion of the Court 

eration of this argument. First, suppose Patchak had sued

under the APA claiming that he owned the Bradley Property and that the Secretary therefore could not take it into 

trust. The QTA would bar that suit, for reasons just suggested. True, it fits within the APA’s general waiver, but

the QTA specifically authorizes quiet title actions (which 

this hypothetical suit is) except when they involve Indian

lands (which this hypothetical suit does). In such a circumstance, a plaintiff cannot use the APA to end-run

the QTA’s limitations. “[W]hen Congress has dealt in particularity with a claim and [has] intended a specified

remedy”—including its exceptions—to be exclusive, that is the 

end of the matter; the APA does not undo the judgment. 

Block v. North Dakota ex rel. Board of Univ. and School 

Lands, 461 U. S. 273, 286, n. 22 (1983) (quoting H. R. Rep.

No. 94–1656, p. 13 (1976)).

But now suppose that Patchak had sued under the APA 

claiming only that use of the Bradley Property was causing environmental harm, and raising no objection at all to

the Secretary’s title. The QTA could not bar that suit 

because even though involving Indian lands, it asserts 

a grievance altogether different from the kind the statute 

concerns. JUSTICE SCALIA, in a former life as Assistant 

Attorney General, made this precise point in a letter to

Congress about the APA’s waiver of immunity (which we

hasten to add, given the author, we use not as legislative

history, but only for its persuasive force). When a statute 

“is not addressed to the type of grievance which the plaintiff seeks to assert,” then the statute cannot prevent an

APA suit. Id., at 28 (May 10, 1976, letter of Assistant 

Atty. Gen. A. Scalia).3 

—————— 

3According to the dissent, we should look only to the kind of relief a 

plaintiff seeks, rather than the type of grievance he asserts, in deciding

whether another statute bars an APA action. See post, at 6 (opinion of 

SOTOMAYOR, J.). But the dissent’s test is inconsistent with the one we 

adopted in Block, which asked whether Congress had particularly dealt 
 

Cite as: 567 U. S. ____ (2012) 7 

Opinion of the Court 

We think that principle controls Patchak’s case: The

QTA’s “Indian lands” clause does not render the Government immune because the QTA addresses a kind of grievance different from the one Patchak advances. As we will 

explain, the QTA—whose full name, recall, is the Quiet 

Title Act—concerns (no great surprise) quiet title actions. 

And Patchak’s suit is not a quiet title action, because 

although it contests the Secretary’s title, it does not claim 

any competing interest in the Bradley Property. That fact 

makes the QTA’s “Indian lands” limitation simply inapposite to this litigation.

In reaching this conclusion, we need look no further

than the QTA’s text. From its title to its jurisdictional 

grant to its venue provision, the Act speaks specifically and 

repeatedly of “quiet title” actions. See 86 Stat. 1176 (“An 

Act [t]o permit suits to adjudicate certain real property 

quiet title actions”); 28 U. S. C. §1346(f) (giving district 

courts jurisdiction over “civil actions . . . to quiet title” to

property in which the United States claims an interest); 

§1402(d) (setting forth venue for “[a]ny civil action . . . to 

quiet title” to property in which the United States claims 

an interest). That term is universally understood to refer

to suits in which a plaintiff not only challenges someone

else’s claim, but also asserts his own right to disputed 

property. See, e.g., Black’s Law Dictionary 34 (9th ed. 

2009) (defining an “action to quiet title” as “[a] proceeding 

—————— 

with a “claim.” See Block v. North Dakota ex rel. Board of Univ. and 

School Lands, 461 U. S. 273, 286, n. 22 (1983). And the dissent’s 

approach has no obvious limits. Suppose, for example, that Congress 

passed a statute authorizing a particular form of injunctive relief in a

procurement contract suit except when the suit involved a “discretionary function” of a federal employee. Cf. 28 U. S. C. §2680(a). Under 

the dissent’s method, that exception would preclude any APA suit 

seeking that kind of injunctive relief if it involved a discretionary

function, no matter what the nature of the claim. That implausible

result demonstrates that limitations on relief cannot sensibly be understood apart from the claims to which they attach. 
 

8 MATCH-E-BE-NASH-SHE-WISH BAND OF POTTAWATOMI 

INDIANS v. PATCHAK
 

Opinion of the Court 

to establish a plaintiff’s title to land by compelling the 

adverse claimant to establish a claim or be forever estopped from asserting it”); Grable & Sons Metal Products, 

Inc. v. Darue Engineering & Mfg., 545 U. S. 308, 315 

(2005) (“[T]he facts showing the plaintiffs’ title . . . are 

essential parts of the plaintiffs’ [quiet title] cause of action” (quoting Hopkins v. Walker, 244 U. S. 486, 490 

(1917))).

And the QTA’s other provisions make clear that the

recurrent statutory term “quiet title action” carries its ordinary meaning. The QTA directs that the complaint in 

such an action “shall set forth with particularity the nature of the right, title, or interest which the plaintiff 

claims in the real property.” 28 U. S. C. §2409a(d). If the 

plaintiff does not assert any such right (as Patchak does

not), the statute cannot come into play.4 Further, the QTA 

provides an option for the United States, if it loses the 

suit, to pay “just compensation,” rather than return the

property, to the “person determined to be entitled” to it.

§2409a(b). That provision makes perfect sense in a quiet 

title action: If the plaintiff is found to own the property, 

the Government can satisfy his claim through an award of

money (while still retaining the land for its operations). 

But the provision makes no sense in a suit like this one, 

—————— 

4The dissent contends that the QTA omits two other historical requirements for quiet title suits. See post, at 8. But many States had 

abandoned those requirements by the time the QTA was passed. See 

S. Rep. No. 92–575, p. 6 (1971) (noting “wide differences in State

statutory and decisional law” on quiet title suits); Steadman, “Forgive

the U. S. Its Trespasses?”: Land Title Disputes With the Sovereign—

Present Remedies and Prospective Reforms, 1972 Duke L. J. 15, 48–49, 

and n. 152 (stating that cases had disputed whether a quiet title 

plaintiff needed to possess the land); Welch v. Kai, 4 Cal. App. 3d 374,

380–381, 84 Cal. Rptr. 619, 622–623 (1970) (allowing a quiet title action

when the plaintiff claimed only an easement); Benson v. Fekete, 424 

S. W. 2d 729 (Mo. 1968) (en banc) (same). So Congress in enacting the 

QTA essentially chose one contemporaneous form of quiet title action. 
 

Cite as: 567 U. S. ____ (2012) 9 

Opinion of the Court 

where Patchak does not assert a right to the property. If 

the United States loses the suit, an award of just compensation to the rightful owner (whoever and wherever he

might be) could do nothing to satisfy Patchak’s claim.5 

In two prior cases, we likewise described the QTA as

addressing suits in which the plaintiff asserts an ownership interest in Government-held property. In Block v. 

North Dakota ex rel. Board of Univ. and School Lands, 461 

U. S. 273 (1982), we considered North Dakota’s claim to

land that the United States viewed as its own. We held 

that the State could not circumvent the QTA’s statute of 

limitations by invoking other causes of action, among 

them the APA. See id., at 277–278, 286, n. 22. The crux 

of our reasoning was that Congress had enacted the QTA 

to address exactly the kind of suit North Dakota had 

brought. Prior to the QTA, we explained, “citizens asserting title to or the right to possession of lands claimed by

the United States” had no recourse; by passing the statute, “Congress sought to rectify this state of affairs.” Id., 

at 282. Our decision reflected that legislative purpose:

Congress, we held, “intended the QTA to provide the 

exclusive means by which adverse claimants could challenge the United States’ title to real property.” Id., at 286. 

—————— 

5The legislative history, for those who think it useful, further shows

that the QTA addresses quiet title actions, as ordinarily conceived. The 

Senate Report states that the QTA aimed to alleviate the “[g]rave

inequity” to private parties “excluded, without benefit of a recourse to

the courts, from lands they have reason to believe are rightfully theirs.” 

S. Rep. No. 92–575, at 1. Similarly, the House Report notes that the 

history of quiet title actions “goes back to the Courts of England,” and

provided as examples “a plaintiff whose title to land was continually 

being subjected to litigation in the law courts,” and “one who feared 

that an outstanding deed or other interest might cause a claim to be

presented in the future.” H. R. Rep. No. 92–1559, p. 6 (1972). From top

to bottom, these reports show that Congress thought itself to be authorizing bread-and-butter quiet title actions, in which a plaintiff asserts a

right, title, or interest of his own in disputed land. 
10 MATCH-E-BE-NASH-SHE-WISH BAND OF POTTAWATOMI 

INDIANS v. PATCHAK 

Opinion of the Court 

We repeat: “adverse claimants,” meaning plaintiffs who

themselves assert a claim to property antagonistic to the 

Federal Government’s. 

Our decision in United States v. Mottaz, 476 U. S. 834 

(1986), is of a piece. There, we considered whether the 

QTA, or instead the Tucker Act or General Allotment Act, 

governed the plaintiff’s suit respecting certain allotments

of land held by the United States. We thought the QTA 

the relevant statute because the plaintiff herself asserted 

title to the property. Our opinion quoted the plaintiff’s

own description of her suit: “At no time in this proceeding

did [the plaintiff] drop her claim for title. To the contrary,

the claim for title is the essence and bottom line of [the 

plaintiff’s] case.” Id., at 842 (quoting Brief for Respondent 

in Mottaz, O. T. 1985, No. 546, p. 3). That fact, we held, 

brought the suit “within the [QTA’s] scope”: “What [the

plaintiff] seeks is a declaration that she alone possesses

valid title.” 476 U. S., at 842. So once again, we construed 

the QTA as addressing suits by adverse claimants. 

But Patchak is not an adverse claimant—and so the 

QTA (more specifically, its reservation of sovereign immunity from actions respecting Indian trust lands) cannot

bar his suit. Patchak does not contend that he owns the 

Bradley Property, nor does he seek any relief corresponding to such a claim. He wants a court to strip the United 

States of title to the land, but not on the ground that it is

his and not so that he can possess it. Patchak’s lawsuit 

therefore lacks a defining feature of a QTA action. He is 

not trying to disguise a QTA suit as an APA action to

circumvent the QTA’s “Indian lands” exception. Rather, 

he is not bringing a QTA suit at all. He asserts merely 

that the Secretary’s decision to take land into trust violates a federal statute—a garden-variety APA claim. See 

5 U. S. C. §§706(2)(A), (C) (“The reviewing court shall . . .

hold unlawful and set aside agency action . . . not in accordance with law [or] in excess of statutory jurisdiction 
 

Cite as: 567 U. S. ____ (2012) 11 

Opinion of the Court 

[or] authority”). Because that is true—because in thenAssistant Attorney General Scalia’s words, the QTA is 

“not addressed to the type of grievance which [Patchak]

seeks to assert,” H. R. Rep. 94–1656, at 28—the QTA’s 

limitation of remedies has no bearing. The APA’s general

waiver of sovereign immunity instead applies.

The Band and Government, along with the dissent,

object to this conclusion on three basic grounds. First, 

they contend that the QTA speaks more broadly than we 

have indicated, waiving immunity from suits “to adjudicate a disputed title to real property in which the United

States claims an interest.” 28 U. S. C. §2409a(a). That 

language, the argument goes, encompasses all actions

contesting the Government’s legal interest in land, regardless whether the plaintiff claims ownership himself. See 

Brief for Federal Petitioners 19–20; Reply Brief for Tribal

Petitioner 4–6; post, at 8–9 (SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting). 

The QTA (not the APA) thus becomes the relevant statute 

after all—as to both its waiver and its “corresponding” 

reservation of immunity from suits involving Indian lands.

Reply Brief for Tribal Petitioner 6. 

But the Band and Government can reach that result 

only by neglecting key words in the relevant provision.

That sentence, more fully quoted, reads: “The United

States may be named as a party defendant in a civil action 

under this section to adjudicate a disputed title to real 

property in which the United States claims an interest.” 

§2409a(a) (emphasis added). And as we have already 

noted, “this section”—§2409a—includes a host of indications that the “civil action” at issue is an ordinary quiet 

title suit: Just recall the section’s title (“Real property

quiet title actions”), and its pleading requirements (the

plaintiff “shall set forth with particularity the nature of 

the right, title, or interest which [he] claims”), and its

permission to the Government to remedy an infraction by

paying “just compensation.” Read with reference to all 
12 MATCH-E-BE-NASH-SHE-WISH BAND OF POTTAWATOMI 

INDIANS v. PATCHAK
 

Opinion of the Court 

these provisions (as well as to the QTA’s contemporane

ously enacted jurisdictional and venue sections), the waiver 

clause rebuts, rather than supports, the Band’s and the 

Government’s argument: That clause speaks not to any 

suit in which a plaintiff challenges the Government’s title,

but only to an action in which the plaintiff also claims an 

interest in the property. 

The Band and Government next invoke cases holding

that “when a statute provides a detailed mechanism for 

judicial consideration of particular issues at the behest of

particular persons,” the statute may “impliedly preclude[]” 

judicial review “of those issues at the behest of other 

persons.” Block v. Community Nutrition Institute, 467 

U. S. 340, 349 (1984); see United States v. Fausto, 484 

U. S. 439, 455 (1988). Here, the Band and Government 

contend, the QTA’s specific authorization of adverse 

claimants’ suits creates a negative implication: nonadverse claimants like Patchak cannot challenge Government ownership of land under any other statute. See 

Reply Brief for Tribal Petitoner 7–10; Reply Brief for 

Federal Petitioners 7–9; see also post, at 3–4. The QTA, 

says the Band, thus “preempts [Patchak’s] more general 

remedies.” Brief for Tribal Petitioner 23 (internal quotation marks omitted).

But we think that argument faulty, and the cited cases

inapposite, for the reason already given: Patchak is bringing a different claim, seeking different relief, from the

kind the QTA addresses. See supra, at 7–10. To see the 

point, consider a contrasting example. Suppose the QTA

authorized suit only by adverse claimants who could 

assert a property interest of at least a decade’s duration. 

Then suppose an adverse claimant failing to meet that

requirement (because, say, his claim to title went back 

only five years) brought suit under a general statute like

the APA. We would surely bar that suit, citing the cases

the Government and Band rely on; in our imaginary stat-
 

Cite as: 567 U. S. ____ (2012) 13 

Opinion of the Court 

ute, Congress delineated the class of persons who could 

bring a quiet title suit, and that judgment would preclude

others from doing so. But here, once again, Patchak is not 

bringing a quiet title action at all. He is not claiming to

own the property, and he is not demanding that the court 

transfer the property to him. So to succeed in their argument, the Government and Band must go much further 

than the cited cases: They must say that in authorizing 

one person to bring one kind of suit seeking one form of

relief, Congress barred another person from bringing

another kind of suit seeking another form of relief. Presumably, that contention would extend only to suits involving similar subject matter—i.e., the Government’s 

ownership of property. But that commonality is not itself 

sufficient. We have never held, and see no cause to hold 

here, that some general similarity of subject matter can 

alone trigger a remedial statute’s preclusive effect.

Last, the Band and Government argue that we should 

treat Patchak’s suit as we would an adverse claimant’s 

because they equally implicate the “Indian lands” exception’s policies. According to the Government, allowing 

challenges to the Secretary’s trust acquisitions would

“pose significant barriers to tribes[’] . . . ability to promote 

investment and economic development on the lands.”

Brief for Federal Petitioners 24. That harm is the same 

whether or not a plaintiff claims to own the land himself.

Indeed, the Band argues that the sole difference in this 

suit cuts in its direction, because non-adverse claimants 

like Patchak have “the most remote injuries and indirect

interests in the land.” Brief for Tribal Petitioner 13; see 

Reply Brief for Federal Petitioners 11–12; see also post, at 

2, 7, 10.6 

—————— 

6 In a related vein, the dissent argues that our holding will undermine the QTA’s “Indian lands” exception by allowing adverse claimants 

to file APA complaints concealing their ownership interests or to recruit 
 

 

14 MATCH-E-BE-NASH-SHE-WISH BAND OF POTTAWATOMI 

INDIANS v. PATCHAK
 

Opinion of the Court 

That argument is not without force, but it must be

addressed to Congress. In the QTA, Congress made a

judgment about how far to allow quiet title suits—to a

point, but no further. (The “no further” includes not only 

the “Indian lands” exception, but one for security interests 

and water rights, as well as a statute of limitations, a bar 

on jury trials, jurisdictional and venue constraints, and 

the just compensation option discussed earlier.) Perhaps

Congress would—perhaps Congress should—make the

identical judgment for the full range of lawsuits pertaining

to the Government’s ownership of land. But that is not 

our call. The Band assumes that plaintiffs like Patchak

have a lesser interest than those bringing quiet title actions, and so should be precluded a fortiori. But all we can 

say is that Patchak has a different interest. Whether it is 

lesser, as the Band argues, because not based on property 

rights; whether it is greater because implicating public 

interests; or whether it is in the end exactly the same—

that is for Congress to tell us, not for us to tell Congress.

As the matter stands, Congress has not assimilated to

quiet title actions all other suits challenging the Government’s ownership of property. And so when a plaintiff like

Patchak brings a suit like this one, it falls within the 

APA’s general waiver of sovereign immunity. 

III 

We finally consider the Band’s and the Government’s

alternative argument that Patchak cannot bring this action because he lacks prudential standing. This Court 

has long held that a person suing under the APA must

satisfy not only Article III’s standing requirements, but an 

—————— 

third parties to bring suit on their behalf. See post, at 9–11. But we 

think that concern more imaginary than real. We have trouble conceiving of a plausible APA suit that omits mention of an adverse claimant’s 

interest in property yet somehow leads to relief recognizing that very 

interest. 
 

Cite as: 567 U. S. ____ (2012) 15 

Opinion of the Court 

additional test: The interest he asserts must be “arguably 

within the zone of interests to be protected or regulated by

the statute” that he says was violated. Association of Data 

Processing Service Organizations, Inc. v. Camp, 397 U. S. 

150, 153 (1970). Here, Patchak asserts that in taking 

title to the Bradley Property, the Secretary exceeded her

authority under §465, which authorizes the acquisition of 

property “for the purpose of providing land for Indians.”

And he alleges that this statutory violation will cause him

economic, environmental, and aesthetic harm as a nearby 

property owner. See supra, at 3. The Government and 

Band argue that the relationship between §465 and

Patchak’s asserted interests is insufficient. That is so, 

they contend, because the statute focuses on land acquisition, whereas Patchak’s interests relate to the land’s use 

as a casino. See Brief for Tribal Petitioner 46 (“The Secretary’s decision to put land into trust does not turn on any 

particular use of the land, gaming or otherwise[,] . . . [and] 

thus has no impact on [Patchak] or his asserted interests”); Brief for Federal Petitioners 34 (“[L]and may be

taken into trust for a host of purposes that have nothing at all to do with gaming”). We find this argument 

unpersuasive.

The prudential standing test Patchak must meet “is not

meant to be especially demanding.” Clarke v. Securities 

Industry Assn., 479 U. S. 388, 399 (1987). We apply the

test in keeping with Congress’s “evident intent” when

enacting the APA “to make agency action presumptively

reviewable.” Ibid. We do not require any “indication of 

congressional purpose to benefit the would-be plaintiff.” 

Id., at 399–400.7 And we have always conspicuously 

—————— 

7For this reason, the Band’s statement that Patchak is “not an Indian 

or tribal official seeking land” and does not “claim an interest in advancing tribal development,” Brief for Tribal Petitioner 42, is beside the

point. The question is not whether §465 seeks to benefit Patchak; 

everyone can agree it does not. The question is instead, as the Band’s 
16 MATCH-E-BE-NASH-SHE-WISH BAND OF POTTAWATOMI 

INDIANS v. PATCHAK
 

Opinion of the Court 

included the word “arguably” in the test to indicate that 

the benefit of any doubt goes to the plaintiff. The test 

forecloses suit only when a plaintiff’s “interests are so 

marginally related to or inconsistent with the purposes 

implicit in the statute that it cannot reasonably be assumed that Congress intended to permit the suit.” Id., 

at 399. 

Patchak’s suit satisfies that standard, because §465 has 

far more to do with land use than the Government and 

Band acknowledge. Start with what we and others have 

said about §465’s context and purpose. As the leading 

treatise on federal Indian law notes, §465 is “the capstone”

of the IRA’s land provisions. F. Cohen, Handbook of Federal Indian Law §15.07[1][a], p. 1010 (2005 ed.) (hereinafter Cohen). And those provisions play a key role in the 

IRA’s overall effort “to rehabilitate the Indian’s economic 

life,” Mescalero Apache Tribe v. Jones, 411 U. S. 145, 152 

(1973) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Land forms 

the basis” of that “economic life,” providing the foundation 

for “tourism, manufacturing, mining, logging, . . . and 

gaming.” Cohen §15.01, at 965. Section 465 thus functions as a primary mechanism to foster Indian tribes’

economic development. As the D. C. Circuit explained in 

the MichGO litigation, the section “provid[es] lands sufficient to enable Indians to achieve self-support.” Michigan 

Gambling, 525 F. 3d, at 31 (internal quotation marks

omitted); see Morton v. Mancari, 417 U. S. 535, 542 (1974) 

(noting the IRA’s economic aspect). So when the Secretary

obtains land for Indians under §465, she does not do so in 

a vacuum. Rather, she takes title to properties with at

least one eye directed toward how tribes will use those 

—————— 

and the Government’s main argument acknowledges, whether issues of

land use (arguably) fall within §465’s scope—because if they do, a

neighbor complaining about such use may sue to enforce the statute’s 

limits. See infra this page and 16–17. 
 

Cite as: 567 U. S. ____ (2012) 17 

Opinion of the Court 

lands to support economic development.

The Department’s regulations make this statutory

concern with land use crystal clear. Those regulations

permit the Secretary to acquire land in trust under §465

if the “land is necessary to facilitate tribal selfdetermination, economic development, or Indian housing.” 

25 CFR §151.3(a)(3). And they require the Secretary to 

consider, in evaluating any acquisition, both “[t]he purposes for which the land will be used” and the “potential conflicts of land use which may arise.” §§151.10(c),

151.10(f); see §151.11(a). For “off-reservation acquisitions”

made “for business purposes”—like the Bradley Property—

the regulations further provide that the tribe must

“provide a plan which specifies the anticipated economic 

benefits associated with the proposed use.” §151.11(c).

DOI’s regulations thus show that the statute’s implementation centrally depends on the projected use of a given 

property.

The Secretary’s acquisition of the Bradley Property is

a case in point. The Band’s application to the Secretary

highlighted its plan to use the land for gaming purposes. 

See App. 41 (“[T]rust status for this Property is requested

in order for the Tribe to acquire property on which it plans 

to conduct gaming”); id., at 61–62 (“The Tribe intends to 

. . . renovate the existing . . . building into a gaming facility . . . . to offer Class II and/or Class III gaming”). Similarly, DOI’s notice of intent to take the land into trust

announced that the land would “be used for the purpose of

construction and operation of a gaming facility,” which the 

Department had already determined would meet the 

Indian Gaming Regulatory Act’s requirements. 70 Fed. 

Reg. 25596; 25 U. S. C. §§2701–2721. So from start to 

finish, the decision whether to acquire the Bradley Property under §465 involved questions of land use. 

And because §465’s implementation encompasses these 

issues, the interests Patchak raises—at least arguably— 
 

18 MATCH-E-BE-NASH-SHE-WISH BAND OF POTTAWATOMI 

INDIANS v. PATCHAK 

Opinion of the Court 

fall “within the zone . . . protected or regulated by the 

statute.” If the Government had violated a statute specifically addressing how federal land can be used, no one

would doubt that a neighboring landowner would have

prudential standing to bring suit to enforce the statute’s

limits. The difference here, as the Government and Band 

point out, is that §465 specifically addresses only land acquisition. But for the reasons already given, decisions 

under the statute are closely enough and often enough 

entwined with considerations of land use to make that 

difference immaterial. As in this very case, the Secretary

will typically acquire land with its eventual use in mind, 

after assessing potential conflicts that use might create.

See 25 CFR §§151.10(c), 151.10(f), 151.11(a). And so 

neighbors to the use (like Patchak) are reasonable—

indeed, predictable—challengers of the Secretary’s decisions: Their interests, whether economic, environmental, 

or aesthetic, come within §465’s regulatory ambit. 

* * * 

The QTA’s reservation of sovereign immunity does not 

bar Patchak’s suit. Neither does the doctrine of prudential 

standing. We therefore affirm the judgment of the D. C. 

Circuit, and remand the case for further proceedings

consistent with this opinion. 

It is so ordered. 
_________________ 

_________________ 

 

Cite as: 567 U. S. ____ (2012) 1 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Nos. 11–246 and 11–247 

MATCH-E-BE-NASH-SHE-WISH BAND OF 

POTTAWATOMI INDIANS, PETITIONER 

11–246 v. 

DAVID PATCHAK ET AL. 

KEN L. SALAZAR, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, 

ET AL., PETITIONERS 

11–247 v. 

DAVID PATCHAK ET AL. 

ON WRITS OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 

APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT 

[June 18, 2012]

 JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, dissenting. 

In enacting the Quiet Title Act (QTA), Congress waived

the Government’s sovereign immunity in cases seeking “to

adjudicate a disputed title to real property in which the

United States claims an interest.” 28 U. S. C. §2409a(a). 

In so doing, Congress was careful to retain the Government’s sovereign immunity with respect to particular

claimants, particular categories of land, and particular 

remedies. Congress and the Executive Branch considered 

these “carefully crafted provisions” essential to the immunity waiver and “necessary for the protection of the 

national public interest.” Block v. North Dakota ex rel. 

Board of Univ. and School Lands, 461 U. S. 273, 284–285 

(1983).

The Court’s opinion sanctions an end-run around these

vital limitations on the Government’s waiver of sovereign 

immunity. After today, any person may sue under the 
2 MATCH-E-BE-NASH-SHE-WISH BAND OF POTTAWATOMI 

INDIANS v. PATCHAK
 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting
 

Administrative Procedure Act (APA) to divest the Federal

Government of title to and possession of land held in trust

for Indian tribes—relief expressly forbidden by the QTA—

so long as the complaint does not assert a personal interest in the land. That outcome cannot be squared with the

APA’s express admonition that it confers no “authority to

grant relief if any other statute that grants consent to suit 

expressly or impliedly forbids the relief which is sought.” 

5 U. S. C. §702. The Court’s holding not only creates

perverse incentives for private litigants, but also exposes 

the Government’s ownership of land to costly and prolonged challenges. Because I believe those results to be 

inconsistent with the QTA and the APA, I respectfully

dissent. 

I 

A 

Congress enacted the QTA to provide a comprehensive 

solution to the problem of real-property disputes between 

private parties and the United States. The QTA strikes a 

careful balance between private parties’ desire to adjudicate such disputes, and the Government’s desire to impose 

“‘appropriate safeguards’” on any waiver of sovereign 

immunity to ensure “‘the protection of the public interest.’” Block, 461 U. S., at 282–283; see also S. Rep. No. 

92–575, p. 6 (1971).

Section 2409a(a) provides expansively that “[t]he United

States may be named as a party defendant in a civil action

under this section to adjudicate a disputed title to real 

property in which the United States claims an interest.” 

That language mirrors the title proposed by the Executive 

Branch for the legislation that Congress largely adopted:

“A Bill To permit suits to adjudicate disputed titles to 

lands in which the United States claims an interest.” Id., 

at 7. 

The remainder of the Act, however, imposes important 
 

 

Cite as: 567 U. S. ____ (2012) 3 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

conditions upon the Government’s waiver of sovereign immunity. First, the right to sue “does not apply to trust or 

restricted Indian lands.” §2409a(a). The Indian lands 

exception reflects the view that “a waiver of immunity in 

this area would not be consistent with specific commitments [the Government] ha[s] made to the Indians 

through treaties and other agreements.” Block, 461 U. S., 

at 283 (internal quotation marks omitted). By exempting 

Indian lands, Congress ensured that the Government’s

“solemn obligations” to tribes would not be “abridg[ed] . . .

without the consent of the Indians.” S. Rep. No. 92–575, 

at 4. 

Second, the Act preserves the United States’ power to

retain possession or control of any disputed property, even

if a court determines that the Government’s property

claim is invalid. To that end, §2409a(b) “allow[s] the

United States the option of paying money damages instead of surrendering the property if it lost a case on the 

merits.” Block, 461 U. S., at 283. This provision was

considered essential to addressing the Government’s 

“main objection in the past to waiving sovereign immunity” where federal land was concerned: that an adverse

judgment “would make possible decrees ousting the United

States from possession and thus interfer[e] with operations of the Government.” S. Rep. No. 92–575, at 5–6.

Section 2409a(b) “eliminate[d] cause for such apprehension,” by ensuring that—even under the QTA—the United 

States could not be stripped of its possession or control of 

property without its consent. Id., at 6. 

Finally, the Act limits the class of individuals permitted 

to sue the Government to those claiming a “right, title, or

interest” in disputed property. §2409a(d). As we have 

explained, Congress’ decision to restrict the class entitled

to relief indicates that Congress precluded relief for the 

remainder. See, e.g., Block v. Community Nutrition Institute, 467 U. S. 340, 349 (1984) (“[W]hen a statute provides 
4 MATCH-E-BE-NASH-SHE-WISH BAND OF POTTAWATOMI 

INDIANS v. PATCHAK
 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting
 

a detailed mechanism for judicial consideration of particular issues at the behest of particular persons, judicial

review of those issues at the behest of other persons may 

be found to be impliedly precluded”). That inference is 

especially strong here, because the QTA was “enacted 

against the backdrop of sovereign immunity.” S. Rep. No. 

94–996, p. 27 (1976). Section 2409a(d) thus indicates 

that Congress concluded that those without any “right, title, 

or interest” in a given property did not have an interest sufficient to warrant abrogation of the Government’s 

sovereign immunity.

Congress considered these conditions indispensible to its 

immunity waiver.1 “[W]hen Congress attaches conditions 

to legislation waiving the sovereign immunity of the United

States, those conditions must be strictly observed, and

exceptions thereto are not to be lightly implied.” Block, 

461 U. S., at 287. Congress and the Executive Branch

intended the scheme to be the exclusive procedure for 

resolving property title disputes involving the United

States. See id., at 285 (describing Act as a “careful and 

thorough remedial scheme”); S. Rep. No. 92–575, at 4 

(§2409a “provides a complete, thoughtful approach to the 

problem of disputed titles to federally claimed land” (emphasis added)).

For that reason, we held that Congress did not intend to

create a “new supplemental remedy” when it enacted the

APA’s general waiver of sovereign immunity. Block, 461 

—————— 

1As we explained in Block v. North Dakota ex rel. Board of Univ. and 

School Lands, 461 U. S. 273, 282–283 (1983), Congress’ initial proposal

lacked such provisions. The Executive Branch, however, strongly

opposed the original bill, explaining that it was “too broad and sweeping in scope and lacking adequate safeguards to protect the public 

interest.” Dispute of Titles on Public Lands: Hearings on S. 216 et al.

before the Subcommittee on Public Lands of the Senate Committee on 

Interior and Insular Affairs, 92d Cong., 1st Sess., 21 (1971). Congress 

ultimately agreed, largely adopting the Executive’s substitute bill. See 

Block, 461 U. S., at 283–284. 
Cite as: 567 U. S. ____ (2012) 5 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

U. S., at 286, n. 22. “‘It would require the suspension of 

disbelief,’” we reasoned, “‘to ascribe to Congress the design to allow its careful and thorough remedial scheme to

be circumvented by artful pleading.’” Id., at 285 (quoting 

Brown v. GSA, 425 U. S. 820, 833 (1976)). If a plaintiff 

could oust the Government of title to land by means of an

APA action, “all of the carefully crafted provisions of the 

QTA deemed necessary for the protection of the national

public interest could be averted,” and the “Indian lands

exception to the QTA would be rendered nugatory.” Block, 

461 U. S., at 284–285. We therefore had little difficulty 

concluding that Congress did not intend to render the

QTA’s limitations obsolete by affording any plaintiff the

right to dispute the Government’s title to any lands by

way of an APA action—and to empower any such plaintiff

to “disposses[s] [the United States] of the disputed property without being afforded the option of paying damages.” 

Id., at 285. 

It is undisputed that Patchak does not meet the conditions to sue under the QTA. He seeks to challenge the 

Government’s title to Indian trust land (strike one); he 

seeks to force the Government to relinquish possession 

and title outright, leaving it no alternative to pay compensation (strike two); and he does not claim any personal 

right, title, or interest in the property (strike three). Thus, 

by its express terms, the QTA forbids the relief Patchak

seeks. Compare ante, at 3 (“[A]ll parties agree that the

suit now effectively seeks to divest the Federal Government of title to the [Indian trust] land”), with United 

States v. Mottaz, 476 U. S. 834, 842 (1986) (Section

2409a(a)’s Indian lands exclusion “operates solely to retain

the United States’ immunity from suit by third parties

challenging the United States’ title to land held in trust 

for Indians”). Consequently, Patchak may not avoid the 

QTA’s constraints by suing under the APA, a statute 

enacted only four years later. See 5 U. S. C. §702 (render-
 

6 MATCH-E-BE-NASH-SHE-WISH BAND OF POTTAWATOMI 

INDIANS v. PATCHAK
 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting
 

ing the APA’s waiver of sovereign immunity inapplicable

“if any other statute that grants consent to suit expressly 

or impliedly forbids the relief which is sought”). 

B 

The majority nonetheless permits Patchak to circumvent the QTA’s limitations by filing an action under the 

APA. It primarily argues that the careful limitations Congress imposed upon the QTA’s waiver of sovereign immunity are “simply inapposite” to actions in which the 

plaintiff advances a different “grievance” to that underlying a QTA suit, i.e., cases in which a plaintiff seeks to

“strip the United States of title to the land . . . not on the

ground that it is his,” but rather because “the Secretary’s 

decision to take land into trust violates a federal statute.” 

Ante, at 7, 10. This analysis is unmoored from the text of

the APA. 

Section 702 focuses not on a plaintiff ’s motivation for 

suit, nor the arguments on which he grounds his case, but 

only on whether another statute expressly or impliedly 

forbids the relief he seeks. The relief Patchak admittedly

seeks—to oust the Government of title to Indian trust 

land—is identical to that forbidden by the QTA. Conversely, the Court’s hypothetical suit, alleging that the 

Bradley Property was causing environmental harm, would 

not be barred by the QTA. See ante, at 6. That is not 

because such an action asserts a different “grievance,” but 

because it seeks different relief—abatement of a nuisance 

rather than the extinguishment of title.2 

—————— 

2The majority claims, ante, at 7, n. 3, that this test has “no obvious 

limits,” but it merely applies the text of §702 (which speaks of “relief,”

not “grievances”). In any event, the majority’s hypothetical, ibid., 

compares apples to oranges. I do not contend that the APA bars all 

injunctive relief involving Indian lands, simply other suits—like this 

one—that seek “to adjudicate a disputed title to real property in which 

the United States claims an interest.” 28 U. S. C. §2409a(a). That 
 

 

 

 

Cite as: 567 U. S. ____ (2012) 7 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

In any event, the “grievance” Patchak asserts is no

different from that asserted in Block—a case in which we 

unanimously rejected a plaintiff ’s attempt to avoid the

QTA’s restrictions by way of an APA action or the similar 

device of an officer’s suit.3 That action, like this one, was 

styled as a suit claiming that the Government’s actions

respecting land were “‘“not within [its] statutory powers.”’” 461 U. S., at 281. Cf. ante, at 10 (“[Patchak] asserts merely that the Secretary’s decision to take land into 

trust violates a federal statute”). The relief requested was 

also identical to that sought here: injunctive relief directing the United States to “‘cease and desist from . . . exercising privileges of ownership’” over the land in question.

461 U. S., at 278; see also App. 38.

The only difference that the majority can point to between Block and this case is that Patchak asserts a weaker 

interest in the disputed property. But that is no reason 

to imagine that Congress intended a different outcome. As 

the majority itself acknowledges, the harm to the United

States and tribes when a plaintiff sues to extinguish the 

Government’s title to Indian trust land is identical 

“whether or not a plaintiff claims to own the land himself.” 

Ante, at 12. Yet, if the majority is correct, Congress intended the APA’s waiver of immunity to apply to those 

hypothetical plaintiffs differently. Congress, it suggests,

intended to permit anyone to circumvent the QTA’s careful 

—————— 

result is entirely consistent with Block—which stated that the APA 

“specifically confers no ‘authority to grant relief if any other statute . . .

expressly or impliedly forbids the relief which is sought.’ ” 461 U. S, at 

286, n. 22 (quoting 5 U. S. C. §702). 3An officer’s suit is an action directly against a federal officer, but

was otherwise identical to the kind of APA action at issue here. Compare Block, 461 U. S., at 281 (seeking relief because agency official’s

actions were “ ‘ “not within [his] statutory powers” ’ ”), with 5 U. S. C.

§706(2)(C) (“The reviewing court shall . . . hold unlawful and set aside

agency action . . . found to be . . . in excess of statutory jurisdiction,

authority, or limitations”). 
 

8 MATCH-E-BE-NASH-SHE-WISH BAND OF POTTAWATOMI 

INDIANS v. PATCHAK
 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting
 

limitations and sue to force the Government to relinquish

Indian trust lands—anyone, that is, except those with the 

strongest entitlement to bring such actions: those claiming

a personal “right, title, or interest” in the land in question. 

The majority’s conclusion hinges, therefore, on the doubtful premise that Congress intended to waive the Government’s sovereign immunity wholesale for those like

Patchak, who assert an “aesthetic” interest in land, ante, 

at 1, while retaining the Government’s sovereign immunity against those who assert a constitutional interest in 

land—the deprivation of property without due process 

of law. This is highly implausible. Unsurprisingly, the

majority does not even attempt to explain why Congress

would have intended this counterintuitive result. 

It is no answer to say that the QTA reaches no further 

than an “ordinary quiet title suit.” Ante, at 11. The action 

permitted by §2409a is not an ordinary quiet title suit. At 

common law, equity courts “permit[ted] a bill to quiet title 

to be filed only by a party in possession [of land] against a

defendant, who ha[d] been ineffectually seeking to establish a legal title by repeated actions of ejectment.” Wehrman v. Conklin, 155 U. S. 314, 321–322 (1894) (emphasis 

added). Section 2409a is broader, requiring neither prerequisite. Moreover, as the majority tells us, see ante, 

at 7, an act to quiet title is “universally understood” as a

proceeding “to establish a plaintiff ’s title to land.” Black’s 

Law Dictionary 34 (9th ed. 2009) (emphasis added). But 

§2409a authorizes civil actions in cases in which neither 

the Government, nor the plaintiff, claims title to the land 

at issue. See §2409a(d) (“The complaint shall set forth . . . 

the right, title, or interest which the plaintiff claims” (emphasis added)).4 A plaintiff may file suit under §2409a, for 

—————— 

4The majority notes that some States permit a broader class of 

claims under the rubric of “quiet title,” and points to the “ ‘wide differences in State statutory and decisional law’ on quiet title suits” at the 
 

 

Cite as: 567 U. S. ____ (2012) 9 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

instance, when he claims only an easement in land, the 

right to explore an area for minerals, or some other lesser 

right or interest. See S. Rep. No. 92–575, at 5. Notwithstanding its colloquial title, therefore, the QTA plainly 

allows suit in circumstances well beyond “bread-andbutter quiet title actions,” ante, at 3, n. 3.5 

The majority attempts to bolster its reading by emphasizing an unexpected source within §2409a: the clause 

specifying that the United States may be sued “‘in a civil 

action under this section.’” Ante, at 11. The majority

understands this clause to narrow the QTA’s scope (and

its limitations on the Government’s immunity waiver) to 

quiet title claims only. But “this section” speaks broadly

to civil actions “to adjudicate a disputed title to real property in which the United States claims an interest.”

§2409a. Moreover, this clause is read most straightforwardly to serve a far more pedestrian purpose: simply to

state that a claimant can file “a civil action under this 

section”—§2409a—to adjudicate a disputed title in which 

the United States claims an interest. Regardless of how

one reads the clause, however, it does not alter the APA’s 

clear command that suits seeking relief forbidden by other 

statutes are not authorized by the APA. And the QTA 

forbids the relief sought here: injunctive relief forcing the

Government to relinquish title to Indian lands.

Even if the majority were correct that the QTA itself

reached only as far as ordinary quiet title actions, that 

—————— 

time of the Act. Ante, at 8, n. 4. But that substantial variation only

illustrates the artificiality of the majority’s claim that the Act only 

“addresses quiet title actions, as ordinarily conceived.” Ante, at 9, n. 5. 5 I recognize, of course, that the QTA is titled “[a]n Act to permit suits 

to adjudicate certain real property quiet title actions.” 86 Stat. 1176. 

But “the title of a statute . . . cannot limit the plain meaning of [its] 

text.” Trainmen v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co., 331 U. S. 519, 528–529 

(1947). As explained above, the substance of Congress’ enactment 

plainly extends more broadly than quiet title actions, mirroring the 

scope of the title proposed by the Government. See supra, at 2. 
10 MATCH-E-BE-NASH-SHE-WISH BAND OF POTTAWATOMI 

INDIANS v. PATCHAK 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

would establish only that the QTA does not expressly 

forbid the relief Patchak seeks. The APA, however, does 

not waive the Government’s sovereign immunity where 

any other statute “expressly or impliedly forbids the relief 

which is sought.” 5 U. S. C. §702 (emphasis added). The 

text and history of the QTA, as well as this Court’s precedent, make clear that the United States intended to retain 

its sovereign immunity from suits to dispossess the Government of Indian trust land. Patchak’s suit to oust the 

Government of such land is therefore, at minimum, impliedly forbidden.6 

II 

Three consequences illustrate the difficulties today’s

holding will present for courts and the Government. First, 

it will render the QTA’s limitations easily circumvented. 

Although those with property claims will remain formally 

prohibited from bringing APA suits because of Block, 

savvy plaintiffs and their lawyers can recruit a family 

member or neighbor to bring suit asserting only an “aesthetic” interest in the land but seeking an identical practical objective—to divest the Government of title and

possession. §§2409a(a), (b). Nothing will prevent them from 

obtaining relief that the QTA was designed to foreclose. 

Second, the majority’s holding will frustrate the Government’s ability to resolve challenges to its fee-to-trust 

decisions expeditiously. When a plaintiff like Patchak 

asserts an “aesthetic” or “environmental” concern with a 

planned use of Indian trust land, he may bring a distinct 

suit under statutes like the National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969 and the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. 

Those challenges generally may be brought within the

APA’s ordinary 6-year statute of limitations. Suits to 

—————— 

6Because I conclude that sovereign immunity bars Patchak’s suit, 

I would not reach the question of whether he has standing. 
Cite as: 567 U. S. ____ (2012) 11 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

contest the Government’s decision to take title to land in 

trust for Indian tribes, however, have been governed by a

different rule. Until today, parties seeking to challenge 

such decisions had only a 30-day window to seek judicial review. 25 CFR §151.12 (2011); 61 Fed. Reg.

18,082–18,083 (1996). That deadline promoted finality and 

security—necessary preconditions for the investment 

and “economic development” that are central goals of the

Indian Reorganization Act. Ante, at 16.7 Today’s result

will promote the opposite, retarding tribes’ ability to develop land until the APA’s 6-year statute of limitations

has lapsed.8 

Finally, the majority’s rule creates substantial uncertainty regarding who exactly is barred from bringing APA

claims. The majority leaves unclear, for instance, whether 

its rule bars from suit only those who “claim any competing interest” in the disputed land in their complaint, ante, 

at 7, or those who could claim a competing interest, but

plead only that the Government’s title claim violates a 

federal statute. If the former, the majority’s holding

would allow Patchak’s challenge to go forward even if he 

had some personal interest in the Bradley Property, so

long as his complaint did not assert it. That result is 

difficult to square with Block and Mottaz. If the latter, 

matters are even more peculiar. Because a shrewd plaintiff will avoid referencing her own property claim in her 

—————— 

7Trust status, for instance, is a prerequisite to making lands eligible

for various federal incentives and tax credits closely tied to economic

development. See, e.g., App. 56. Delayed suits will also inhibit tribes

from investing in uses other than gaming that might be less objectionable—like farming or office use. 8Despite notice of the Government’s intent through an organization

with which he was affiliated, Patchak did not challenge the Government’s fee-to-trust decision even though the organization did. See 

Michigan Gambling Opposition v. Kempthorne, 525 F. 3d 23 (CADC 

2008). Instead, Patchak waited to sue until three years after the

Secretary’s intent to acquire the property was published. App. 35, 39. 
 

12 MATCH-E-BE-NASH-SHE-WISH BAND OF POTTAWATOMI 

INDIANS v. PATCHAK 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

complaint, the Government may assert sovereign immunity only if its detective efforts uncover the plaintiff ’s 

unstated property claim. Not only does that impose a

substantial burden on the Government, but it creates perverse incentives for private litigants. What if a plaintiff has a weak claim, or a claim that she does not know 

about? Did Congress really intend for the availability of 

APA relief to turn on whether a plaintiff does a better job

of overlooking or suppressing her own property interest

than the Government does of sleuthing it out? 

As these observations illustrate, the majority’s rule will

impose a substantial burden on the Government and leave 

an array of uncertainties. Moreover, it will open to suit

lands that Congress and the Executive Branch thought 

the “national public interest” demanded should remain 

immune from challenge. Congress did not intend either

result. 

* * * 

For the foregoing reasons, I would hold that the QTA

bars the relief Patchak seeks. I respectfully dissent.