Living Law,
Living LandSupport land rights

Court case

Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community

Tribal sovereign immunity barred Michigan's suit to shut down a casino the Bay Mills Indian Community opened on off-reservation land.

Citation
572 U.S. 782 (2014)
Court
U.S. Supreme Court
Year
2014
Nations
Bay Mills Indian Community (Anishinaabe)
Treaty at issue
None in the opinion: Bay Mills bought the land with funds from the Michigan Indian Land Claims Settlement Act
Effect on land rights
procedural

What happened

Michigan and the Bay Mills Indian Community had a gaming compact under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. It allowed Bay Mills to operate a casino on Indian lands within Michigan, but not outside that territory. Bay Mills ran a casino on its reservation in the Upper Peninsula. In 2010 it opened another in Vanderbilt, a village in the Lower Peninsula about 125 miles away.

Bay Mills had bought the Vanderbilt property with accrued interest from a federal appropriation. Congress had made that appropriation to compensate the Tribe for 19th-century takings of its ancestral lands, under the Michigan Indian Land Claims Settlement Act. The Tribe said it could operate a casino there because the property qualified as Indian land. Michigan disagreed and sued to enjoin the casino. The district court granted the injunction, but the Sixth Circuit vacated it.

The Supreme Court, 5-4, in an opinion by Justice Kagan, held that "immunity protects Bay Mills from this legal action." Congress had not abrogated tribal immunity from a State's suit to enjoin gaming off a reservation or other Indian lands. The Court declined to revisit its prior decisions that tribes have immunity even when a suit arises from off-reservation commercial activity. It said Michigan must resort to other mechanisms, including legal actions against responsible individuals.

The Court noted it did not decide whether the result would differ if no alternative remedy were available.

Summarized with AI assistance from 4 sources and checked against their words; not yet reviewed by historians or by the nations. Report an error

What the sources say, and how this was checked

Well supported by the sources below.

  1. We hold that immunity protects Bay Mills from this legal action.Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community, 572 U.S. 782 (2014) (U.S. Reports, Library of Congress)
  2. Bay Mills had bought the Vanderbilt property with accrued interest from a federal appropriationMichigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community, 572 U.S. 782 (2014) (U.S. Reports, Library of Congress)
  3. Michigan must therefore resort to other mechanisms, including legal actions against the responsible individualsMichigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community, 572 U.S. 782 (2014) (U.S. Reports, Library of Congress)
  4. We need not consider whether the situation would be different if no alternative remedies were available.Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community, 572 U.S. 782 (2014) (U.S. Reports, Library of Congress)

Research notes. The 5-4 split is from the U.S. Reports headnote (Kagan for the Court; Scalia, Thomas, Ginsburg dissenting). The Treaty of 1836 in our data is not in the opinion: the opinion says the funds were a federal appropriation compensating 19th-century takings, under the Michigan Indian Land Claims Settlement Act, so no treaty is stated. I did not read all of the dissents.

Treaty or agreementShapes from the 1899 federal record: approximate, not legal boundaries.

Who is doing the work

This history belongs to living nations. Start with them:

Working with these nations

Native legal and land defense, nationally

Gifts go straight to each organization; this atlas takes nothing. Listing is not endorsement: how organizations are listed.

Corrections to this record

  • The treaty at issue was listed as “Treaty of 1836 (land purchase funds for the casino) [unverified: V1 did not find the 1836 treaty in the opinion; the majority concerns the Michigan Indian Land Claims Settlement Act, so the link is background only]”; corrected from tile.loc.govBay Mills had bought the Vanderbilt property with accrued interest from a federal appropriation

Connections

Links marked “suggested” were matched automatically by name or date and have not yet been reviewed by a person.

Doctrine applied 3

Nations named 2

Concerns the instrument 1

Policy era 1

Sources

  1. tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep572/usrep572782/usrep572782.pdfprimary record
    Bay Mills had bought the Vanderbilt property with accrued interest from a federal appropriation
  2. supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/572/782/legal text copy
The record’s fields
Holding
Tribal sovereign immunity bars Michigan's suit to enjoin an off-reservation casino; IGRA waives immunity only for gaming on Indian lands; the Court declined to overrule Kiowa.
Kind
Court case
Confidence
High
Notes
  • Some details unverified

Correct this record