Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community

Supreme Court of the United States · 2014 · Federal Courts

Federal CourtsTribal Sovereign ImmunityIndian Gaming Regulatory Acttribal sovereign immunityIGRAIndian landsoff-reservation gamingcongressional abrogation

Facts

Under IGRA, Michigan and Bay Mills entered a compact allowing Bay Mills to conduct class III gaming on Indian lands but not outside that territory. Bay Mills later opened a class III gaming facility in Vanderbilt, Michigan, on land it had purchased with earnings from a congressionally created land trust, claiming the property qualified as Indian land. Michigan sued Bay Mills under IGRA and the compact, alleging the casino was outside Indian lands and therefore unlawful. The compact preserved both parties' sovereign immunity and included arbitration for contractual disputes.

Issue

Does tribal sovereign immunity bar Michigan's suit against Bay Mills to enjoin operation of a casino that Michigan alleges is located outside Indian lands? More specifically, did IGRA unequivocally abrogate tribal immunity for this kind of suit, or should the Court limit tribal immunity for off-reservation commercial activity?

Rule

Indian tribes possess common-law sovereign immunity from suit unless Congress unequivocally abrogates that immunity or the tribe waives it. IGRA's partial abrogation in 25 U.S.C. §2710(d)(7)(A)(ii) authorizes state suits only to enjoin class III gaming activity located on Indian lands and conducted in violation of an effective tribal-state compact; it does not authorize suits over gaming alleged to occur off Indian lands. Under existing precedent, tribal immunity applies even to suits arising from off-reservation commercial activity.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

The Red Cedar Nation operates a roulette hall in Tulsa, Oklahoma, on land the State insists is not Indian land. Oklahoma sues the tribe in federal court under IGRA to enjoin the gambling, alleging the operation violates an effective tribal-state compact. The compact contains no waiver of tribal sovereign immunity.

Is the suit against the tribe most likely barred?

Explanation. Tribal sovereign immunity bars suit unless Congress unequivocally abrogates it or the tribe waives it. The majority held that IGRA's abrogation in § 2710(d)(7)(A)(ii) is limited to suits to enjoin class III gaming activity located on Indian lands and conducted in violation of an effective compact. If the state's theory is that the casino is off Indian lands, the suit falls outside the statutory abrogation and is barred.