80 U.S. 128, 13 Wall. 128, 20 L.Ed. 519 (1871), Congress may not pass a statute dictating the result of pending litigation without amending the substantive law, see Pl.'s Mem. at 12-24, a "proposition on which [the D.C. Circuit] expresses] no view,” see Nat’l Coal. To Save Our Mall v. Norton, 269 F.3d 1092, 1096 (D.C.Cir.2001). As the D.C. Circuit has recognized, “Klein’s exact meaning is far from clear,” see id. at 1097, and as another judge on this Court has observed “Klein is rarely (if ever) successfully invoked in constitutional challenges to federal statutes,” see Wazir v. Gates, 629 F.Supp.2d 63, 66 (D.D.C.2009). As a result, courts have upheld statutes with analogous language against similar constitutional challenges under Klein. See, e.g., Save Our Mall, 269 F.3d at 1094-97 (<HOLDING>); Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Salazar, 672
holding that statute requiring the world war ii memorial be built consistent with the existing permits not withstanding any other provision of law amended the applicable substantive law and did not run afoul of klein holding that atca establishes cause of action for violations of international law but requiring the district court to perform a traditional choiceoflaw analysis to determine whether international law law of forum state or law of state where events occurred should provide substantive law in such an action holding that actions by the war manpower commission could be contractual when not taken pursuant to any general law or policy holding that tort law and the law of punitive damages are not controlled by the contract choice of law provision holding that courts apply the procedural law of the forum and the substantive law of the jurisdiction originating the claim