Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community (572 U.S. 782)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided May 27, 2014 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 572 U.S. 782 · 134 S. Ct. 2024
- Decided
- May 27, 2014
- Term
- October Term 2013
- Vote
- 5–4
- Majority author
- Justice Kagan
- Issue area
- Civil Rights
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Outcome
- Petitioning party lost
- Ideological direction
- Liberal
Opinion excerpt
Justice KAGAN delivered the opinion of the Court. The question in this case is whether tribal sovereign immunity bars Michigan's suit against the Bay Mills Indian Community for opening a casino outside Indian lands. We hold that immunity protects Bay Mills from this legal action. Congress has not abrogated tribal sovereign immunity from a State's suit to enjoin gaming off a reservation or other Indian lands. And we decline to revisit our prior decisions holding that, absent such an abrogation (or a waiver), Indian tribes have immunity even when a suit arises from off-reservation commercial activity. Michigan must therefore resort to other mechanisms, including legal actions against the responsible individuals, to resolve this dispute. I The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA or Act), 102 Stat. 2467, 25 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq., creates a framework for regulating gaming activity on Indian lands. See § 2702(3) (describing the statute's purpose as establishing "regulatory authority ... [and] standards for gaming on Indian lands"). The Act divides gaming into three classes. Class III gaming, the most closely regulated and the kind involved here, includes casino games, slot machines, and horse racing. See § 2703(8). A tribe may conduct such gaming on Indian lands only pursuant to, and in compliance with, a compact it has negotiated with the surrounding State. See § 2710(d)(1)(C). A…
Excerpt of a 43,636-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.