We posted the transcript here.

* The first remarkable point about today’s argument is that Justice Scalia appeared to come to the rescue of counsel for Patchak four times , and by the end of Respondent’s time was virtually arguing the case against the government and tribe through counsel. Page 50, line 23 to page 51, line 8, Justice Scalia answers questions from Justices Kagan and Sotomayor on behalf of counsel. On page 52, line 11 to page 53, line 6, Scalia literally concludes counsel’s argument on his behalf, offering two questions that counsel needs only say “yes” to.

The first instances Justice Scalia offers help to Patchak’s counsel are page 34, lines 9 through 20, which ends with Scalia telling counsel he’s supposed to say “yes, sir” to his question and which also ends with laughter from the gallery (presumably the clerks); and on page 39, line 13 though page 40, line 4 (also ending in laughter as Patchak’s counsel agrees with Justice Scalia).

* Justice Scalia comments early on in the government’s time: “whether this land could be used for what you call gaming and I call gambling.” There’s a longstanding rhetorical distinction between those who support tribal gaming/gambling — opponents call it “gambling” and supporters call it “gaming.” Justice Scalia tips his hand, no doubt intentionally.

* In light of our post from earlier today, there were 60 questions for the government and the tribe, and 49 for Patchak.

* A recurring theme in the argument, starting with the opening question from Justice Sotomayor, was that Patchak could have sued under NEPA, other statutes, or federal regs (within 30 days) to challenge the trust acquisition before the land goes into trust, as MIchGO did. The possible weakness is that the government’s position seems to be it can take land into trust at any time to foreclose any challenges to the trust acquisition by slipping behind the immunity barrier in the QTA. If the government did this, then the due process/non delegation problems identified in the 1995 South Dakota v. US decision comes to light. It seems to me that the relatively easy answer is that the due process/non delegation claim is available to challengers if the government did act in this manner, and since it didn’t here, there’s no issue. Of course, the Court would have to trust the Secretary of Interior, which historically, it doesn’t really do.

Update: Even local television (Wood TV, notoriously anti-Gun Lake) conceded that the Justices generally seemed hostile to Patchak’s claims.