Bay Mills Indian Cmty. v. Rick Snyder
720fappx754
| 6th Cir. | 2018Background
- Bay Mills opened a casino on Vanderbilt land in 2010; Michigan sued claiming the land was not “Indian land” under the tribal compact and IGRA.
- Bay Mills argued the land was purchased with MILCSA trust funds and thus "shall be held as Indian lands are held."
- Supreme Court held tribal sovereign immunity barred Michigan’s suit against Bay Mills; case remanded and Michigan sued individual Bay Mills officials (Glezen litigation).
- Bay Mills separately sued for declaratory relief (the instant suit) on whether Vanderbilt is “Indian land”; that suit was stayed and later coordinated with Glezen.
- The Saginaw Chippewa Tribe moved to intervene (mandatory and permissive) the day before Michigan’s dispositive motion on the MILCSA issue; the district court denied both and Saginaw appeals only the denial of permissive intervention.
- The Sixth Circuit affirmed: no common question of law/fact for permissive intervention, Saginaw’s motion was untimely, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying intervention.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Saginaw shares a common question of law or fact with the main action to support permissive intervention under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b) | Saginaw: its positions mirror Michigan’s and IGRA interpretation affects all tribes, so there is a common question. | Bay Mills/Michigan: the dispute centers on MILCSA interpretation (not IGRA) and Saginaw is not a MILCSA party. | Held: No common question; MILCSA, not IGRA, is the operative statute. |
| Whether Saginaw’s motion to intervene was timely | Saginaw: sought to intervene to protect tribal interests. | Bay Mills/Michigan: Saginaw waited years and knew of the litigation; intervention is untimely and prejudicial. | Held: Untimely under the Jansen factors. |
| Whether the district court improperly applied mandatory-intervention standards to permissive intervention | Saginaw: district court imported mandatory-intervention requirements. | Bay Mills/Michigan: district court permissibly considered related factors and existing representation. | Held: No error; district court may consider such factors when exercising discretion. |
| Whether permitting Saginaw would prejudice the parties or be duplicative given existing representation | Saginaw: intervention needed to protect tribal interests. | Bay Mills/Michigan: Michigan’s summary judgment opposes Saginaw’s view; existing parties represent similar interests; intervention would delay and duplicate. | Held: Denial reasonable — Saginaw’s position already represented and intervention would be inappropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bay Mills Indian Community v. Michigan, 134 S. Ct. 2024 (Sup. Ct. 2014) (tribal sovereign immunity and context for IGRA/MILCSA dispute)
- Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action v. Granholm, 501 F.3d 775 (6th Cir.) (abuse-of-discretion review and permissive-intervention considerations)
- Jansen v. City of Cincinnati, 904 F.2d 336 (6th Cir.) (factors for timeliness of intervention)
- Stupak-Thrall v. Glickman, 226 F.3d 467 (6th Cir.) (no absolute time makes a motion untimely)
- In re Telectronics Pacing Sys., Inc., 221 F.3d 870 (6th Cir.) (intervention may be allowed in advanced cases under circumstances)
- Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin v. Thompson, 164 F.R.D. 672 (W.D. Wis. 1996) (consideration that existing parties may adequately represent similar interests)