8/12/2019 SCOTUS Ruling on Bay Mills: Michigan Can "Bring Suit Against Tribal Officials or Employees"

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/scotus-ruling-on-bay-mills-michigan-can-bring-suit-against-tribal-officials 1/2

 

SCOTUS Ruling on Bay Mills: Michigan Can "Bring Suit Against TribalOfficials or Employees"

Contact: Joy Yearout 517-373-8060

May 27, 2014 

LANSING  –  Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette today announced that the U.S. Supreme

Court has upheld the State of Michigan's ability to restrain illegal, off-reservation casinos in Michigan's

challenge to the illegal expansion of off-reservation gaming by the Bay Mills Indian Community. The 5-4

decision comes today as a result of Schuette's appeal of a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the

6th Circuit, which ruled that Michigan could not obtain a federal-court injunction against the illegal casino

because the tribe had sovereign immunity.

"Today the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the State's ability to restrain the illegal expansion of tribal

gaming on state lands," said Schuette. "The 5-4 decision upheld the injunctive power of states to sue tribal

leaders to shut down illegal casinos, and reaffirmed the states' authority to bring criminal charges against

anyone engaging in illegal gaming on state lands."  

 A key excerpt from the U.S. Supreme Court Opinion follows:  

Unless federal law provides differently, "Indians going beyond reservation boundaries" are

subject to any generally applicable state law. See Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation,

546 U. S. 95, 113 (2005) (quoting Mescalero Apache Tribe v. Jones, 411 U. S. 145, 148 (1973)).

So, for example, Michigan could, in the first instance, deny a license to Bay Mills for an off-

reservation casino. See Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. §§432.206  –432.206a (West 2001). And if Bay

Mills went ahead anyway, Michigan could bring suit against tribal officials or employees (rather than

the Tribe itself) seeking an injunction for, say, gambling without a license. See §432.220; see also

§600.3801(1)(a) (West 2013) (designating illegal gambling facilities as public nuisances). As this

Court has stated before, analogizing to Ex parte Young, 209 U. S. 123 (1908), tribal immunity does

not bar sucha suit for injunctive relief against individuals, including tribal officers, responsible for

unlawful conduct. See Santa Clara Pueblo, 436 U. S., at 59. And to the extent civil remedies proved

inadequate, Michigan could resort to its criminal law, prosecuting anyone who maintains—or even

8/12/2019 SCOTUS Ruling on Bay Mills: Michigan Can "Bring Suit Against Tribal Officials or Employees"

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/scotus-ruling-on-bay-mills-michigan-can-bring-suit-against-tribal-officials 2/2

frequents—an unlawful gambling establishment. See Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. §§432.218 (West

2001),750.303, 750.309 (West 2004). In short (and contrary to the dissent's unsupported assertion,

see post, at 11), the panoply of tools Michigan can use to enforce its law on its own lands—no less

than the suit it could bring on Indian lands under §2710(d)(7)(A)(ii)—can shutter, quickly and

 permanently, an illegal casino.7 (p. 12-13). 

The full opinion can be found here: http://1.usa.gov/1mzxsIA. 

The Supreme Court's ruling remands this case to district court for further proceedings. On remand,

the State will continue its suit to close down the illegal casino. While the district court will not be able to

order the Tribe as an entity to refrain from breaking state law as A.G. Schuette had originally requested, it

will be able to order specific tribal officials to follow state law. Using this tool and others identified by the

Supreme Court, the State will continue to enforce Michigan's laws against illegal gaming.  

Background on Michigan v. Bay Mil ls  In December 2010, the State of Michigan filed a lawsuit against the Bay Mills Indian Community

challenging their operation of an illegal off-reservation casino in Vanderbilt, Michigan. On March 29, 2011

U.S. District Court Judge Paul Maloney issued a preliminary injunction ordering the casino closed pending

the outcome of the lawsuit. The tribe appealed, and on August 15, 2012 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the

6th Circuit reversed the trial court decision, declaring that the district court did not have jurisdiction under

the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act and that the tribe had sovereign immunity. Schuette sought U.S.

Supreme Court review in October 2012 and his petition was granted in June 2013. Schuette filed a merits

brief in August 2013 and a reply brief in October 2013. Michigan's former Solicitor General, John Bursch,argued the case, Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community in front of the U.S. Supreme Court in December

2013.  A full timeline of the Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community case is available at this

link: http://bit.ly/17QYKnO. 

-30-