We consider two questions arising from Patchak’s action. 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.
Justice Kagan writes in Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians v. Patchak.
Wait, “we think” he has standing. Think? Isn’t standing something you have to be sure about? (whether standing is jurisdictional or not).
This may just be a nice way of standing, but think it just strikes me the wrong way.