In contrast, Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor, both of whom concurred in the judgment, upheld the Act as a restoration of the government's sovereign immunity.

128 (1872): During the Civil War, the Treasury Department seized abandoned or captured property in Confederate territory to support the Union.

[4] Subsequently, in United States v. Padelford, the Supreme Court held that a pardon rendered such claimants "innocent in law as though he had never participated" in the War and, therefore, was entitled to the proceeds.

[5] In response, Congress enacted a law providing that a presidential pardon in a suit brought for the proceeds of abandoned or captured property shall be treated as "conclusive evidence" of disloyalty, and, upon such proof, "the jurisdiction of the court in the case shall cease, and the court shall forthwith dismiss the suit of such claimant.

The Court held that, because Congress "prescribe[d] a rule for the decision of a cause in a particular way", it had "passed the limit which separates the legislative from the judicial power.

1310 (2016): Victims and estate representatives sued Iran for its role in the 1983 bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut, Lebanon under 28 U.S.C.

"[10] While the litigation was pending, Congress enacted the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act of 2012 (codified at 22 U.S.C.

[24] The District Court dismissed Patchak's claims, concluding he lacked standing to vindicate violations of the IRA.

Circuit reversed and also held that the government had waived its sovereign immunity through the APA, which permits claims for prospective, nonmonetary relief.

[30] Although Patchak argued the Act was unconstitutional, the district court dismissed his case on the ground that it "lack[ed] jurisdiction to reach the merits of plaintiff's claim.

Circuit affirmed the District Court's ruling because, "if an action relates to the Bradley Property, it must promptly be dismissed.

"[34] Does a statute violate the Constitution's separation-of-powers principles if it directs the federal courts to dismiss any pending lawsuit against a particular property but does not amend substantive or procedural laws?

Writing for a plurality of the Court, Justice Thomas held the Gun Lake Act was a lawful exercise of Congress's legislative authority that did not encroach on the judiciary's Article III powers.

"[36] But he went on to observe that Article I entitles Congress to "make laws that apply retroactively to pending lawsuits, even when it effectively ensures that one side wins.

Rather, Justice Thomas clarified that the statute in Klein was unconstitutional because Congress could not alter the effect of presidential pardons and therefore "could not achieve the same result by stripping jurisdiction.

"[41] Thus, this case was unlike Klein because the Gun Lake Act "does not attempt to exercise a power that the Constitution vests in another branch.

That the Act effectively singled out Patchak's lawsuit was of no moment, Justice Thomas explained, pointing out that Congress targeted specific cases in Bank Markazi v. Peterson by referencing their docket number in the statute.

[45] To be sure, sovereign immunity did not initially preclude Patchak's lawsuit because he sought declaratory and injunctive relief, remedies the APA permits plaintiffs to bring against the federal government.

That is, Congress "displace[d] the APA's waiver of immunity for suits against the United States with a contrary command applicable to the Bradley Property.

"[52] The Chief Justice argued that the Court's precedents, including Klein, demonstrate "Congress violates [Article III] when it arrogates the judicial power to itself and decides a particular case.

"[53] In his view, the Act ran afoul of that clear rule: It "target[s] a single party for adverse treatment and direct[s] the precise disposition of his pending case.

"[60] Thus, the Chief Justice would "hold that Congress exercises the judicial power when it manipulates jurisdictional rules to decide the outcome of a particular pending case" and, consequently, would invalidate the Gun Lake Act.