This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
According to Scott E. Gant, the case concerns the constitutionality of Section 2(b) of the Gun Lake Act, which directs federal courts to dismiss a pending case.
According to Scott E. Gant, petitioner argues that Section 2(b) is incompatible with established separation‑of‑powers jurisprudence and Article III.
Background and question before the Court
The Court is being asked to decide whether Section 2(b) of the Gun Lake Act is constitutional.
What each side argues
Petitioner (David Patchak)
According to Scott E. Gant, petitioner argues that Section 2(b) is unconstitutional because it violates separation‑of‑powers principles and Article III.
According to Petitioner, petitioner cites the cases Sebelius and Arbaugh in support of his argument.
Petitioner contends that the Administrative Procedure Act does not apply because another statute precludes judicial review.
Respondent (Ryan Zinke, Secretary of the Interior)
According to Federal Respondents, respondent argues that the Gun Lake Act prevents the case from moving forward.
What happened at oral argument
Justice Breyer asked “What’s the case?”
What the Court decided
Why it matters
The dispute raises important questions about separation of powers and Congress’s ability to strip jurisdiction from federal courts.
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 254dd088d2275fa7c75b-r1-d2bfd8ec1de7aece.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 26, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.