National Labor Relations Board v. Little River Band of Ottawa Indians Tribal Government, 788 F.3d 537

Background

Little River Band of Ottawa Indians operates Little River Casino Resort under IGRA; casino revenues fund over half the tribal budget and the casino employs 905 people (majority non-Indian).
In 2005 (amended 2010) the Band adopted a Fair Employment Practices Code (FEPC) with Articles XVI–XVII restricting strikes, licensing unions, limiting bargaining topics/duration, and restricting cooperation with non‑tribal authorities.
Teamsters filed unfair‑labor‑practice charges; the NLRB found the FEPC violated § 8(a)(1) of the NLRA and ordered the Band to cease enforcing specified FEPC provisions as applied to casino employees.
The Band challenged Board jurisdiction, arguing the NLRA cannot be applied to tribal sovereign activities without clear congressional authorization; the Board relied on a Coeur d’Alene/Tuscarora‑style presumption that generally applicable statutes reach tribes unless an exception applies.
The Sixth Circuit reviewed de novo (refusing Chevron deference on the sovereignty questions), adopted the Coeur d’Alene framework, and held the NLRA applies to the Band’s casino operations; enforcement of the Board’s order was granted.

Issues

Issue	Band’s Argument	NLRB’s/Board’s Argument	Held
Whether the NLRA applies to the Band’s operation of the casino and thus whether the NLRB has jurisdiction	NLRA is silent as to tribes; applying it would impermissibly interfere with tribal sovereignty absent clear congressional statement	NLRA is a general, comprehensive statute that presumptively applies to tribes unless an exception (Coeur d’Alene) is met	NLRA applies to the Band’s casino; Board jurisdiction and enforcement granted
Proper legal standard for addressing congressional silence and tribal sovereignty	Congress must clearly state intent to abrogate tribal sovereignty; reject agency’s Chevron‑style deference where sovereignty issues predominate	Use Coeur d’Alene/Tuscarora presumption that general statutes apply to tribes, with limited exceptions; balancing/discretion where appropriate	Court declines Chevron deference on sovereignty questions; adopts Coeur d’Alene test and applies it de novo
Whether application of the NLRA would touch "exclusive rights of self‑government in purely intramural matters"	FEPC protects tribal revenues and internal governance (strikes, bargaining rules) — so NLRA would impair core self‑governance	FEPC primarily regulates labor relations of many non‑member employees and commercial activity, not purely intramural matters	Court: FEPC regulates mainly non‑member employees at a commercial enterprise and does not implicate purely intramural tribal self‑government exception
Whether Congress’s omission (e.g., no §301 waiver for tribes) shows intent NLRA does not apply to tribes	Omission of tribes from NLRA private‑action provisions indicates Congress did not intend NLRA obligations to reach tribes	Omission of a private‑right‑of‑action/waiver of sovereign immunity does not mean the statute imposes no obligations or that agency enforcement is barred	Court: omission does not show congressional intent to exclude tribes; agency enforcement may proceed against tribes (no private waiver ≠ lack of statutory applicability)

Key Cases Cited

Federal Power Commission v. Tuscarora Indian Nation, 362 U.S. 99 (1960) (general‑statute dictum that statutes of general applicability reach Indians and their property)
Donovan v. Coeur d’Alene Tribal Farm, 751 F.2d 1113 (9th Cir. 1985) (framework: presumption statutes apply to tribes unless three exceptions shown)
San Manuel Indian Bingo & Casino v. NLRB, 475 F.3d 1306 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (upholding NLRB result regarding tribal casino labor regulation though not endorsing NLRB’s full rationale)
Pueblo of San Juan v. NLRB, 276 F.3d 1186 (10th Cir. 2002) (en banc) (rejecting NLRB’s approach; requiring clear congressional intent to displace tribal sovereignty)
Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544 (1981) (limits on tribal authority over nonmembers; two exceptions described)
Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community, 134 S. Ct. 2024 (2014) (courts should not lightly infer congressional intent to abrogate core tribal sovereignty)
Merrion v. Jicarilla Apache Tribe, 455 U.S. 130 (1982) (analyzing whether federal statute implicitly divests tribal taxing power)