Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community
134 S. Ct. 2024
| SCOTUS | 2014Background
- Michigan sued Bay Mills Indian Community in federal court to enjoin a Vanderbilt, Michigan casino outside Indian lands under IGRA and the state-tribal compact.
- Bay Mills operated class III gaming on its reservation and claimed the Vanderbilt facility was authorized as Indian land under the Land Trust earnings provision.
- IGRA § 2710(d)(7)(A)(ii) authorizes suits to enjoin class III gaming located on Indian lands in violation of a Tribal-State compact; the Vanderbilt site is argued by Michigan to be off-reservation.
- The District Court issued a preliminary injunction; on appeal the Sixth Circuit held tribal sovereign immunity barred the suit against Bay Mills absent congressional abrogation.
- This Court held that IGRA does not abrogate tribal immunity for off-reservation gaming; Kiowa-like off-reservation immunity remains, and Michigan must seek other remedies against individuals or pursue different legal strategies.
- Congress has not waived tribal immunity for off-reservation commercial conduct; stare decisis and congressional design favor maintaining immunity in this off-reservation context.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does IGRA abrogate tribal immunity for off-reservation gaming? | Michigan argues IGRA abrogates immunity generally for off-reservation activity. | Bay Mills argues abrogation applies only to on-reservation gaming under § 2710(d)(7)(A)(ii). | IGRA abrogates immunity only for on-reservation gaming; off-reservation suits remain barred. |
| Is Vanderbilt casino off Indian lands subject to IGRA § 2710(d)(7)(A)(ii) abrogation by the Tribe's activities? | If off-reservation activity were considered part of on-reservation class III gaming, suit could proceed. | Class III gaming activity is defined by the gambling itself, not off-site licensing; the Vanderbilt site is off-reservation. | Vanderbilt activity is off-reservation; § 2710(d)(7)(A)(ii) does not authorize a suit to enjoin it. |
| Should Kiowa be revisited to create an off-reservation commercial activity exception to tribal immunity? | Kiowa should be overruled; tribes should not have blanket immunity for off-reservation commerce. | Kiowa's rule should be retained to respect congressional authority and stare decisis. | Court defers to Congress; Kiowa is retained for now; no off-reservation commercial exception. |
| Does congressional silence on Kiowa imply approval of its rule? | Congressional inaction after Kiowa implies approval of Kiowa’s rule. | Legislative inertia does not establish congressional acquiescence; cannot overrule Kiowa by inaction. | Congressional silence does not justify overruling Kiowa; court defers to Congress and maintains Kiowa. |
| What remedies exist if off-reservation immunity remains in place? | There are limited off-reservation enforcement options that could address the Vanderbilt casino. | Immunity for off-reservation conduct requires Congress action; alternative state or federal remedies exist to enforce laws on state lands. | State may pursue remedies against individuals or use other state laws; immunity bars the Tribe as a defendant. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kiowa Tribe of Okla. v. Manufacturing Technologies, Inc., 523 U.S. 751 (1998) (extends tribal immunity to off-reservation commercial conduct; Congress should decide.)
- Puyallup Tribe, Inc. v. Department of Game of Wash., 433 U.S. 165 (1977) (State cannot enforce tribal laws against a tribe; must seek other remedies.)
- Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49 (1978) (tribal sovereignty and Congress’s plenary authority over tribes.)
- Oklahoma Tax Comm'n v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Tribe of Okla., 498 U.S. 505 (1991) (tribal sovereignty limited by congressional power; immunity context.)
- Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (1996) (state sovereign immunity bars suit; tribes cannot compel states in good-faith negotiations on Indian lands.)