Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Cmty. - 572 U.S. 782, 134 S. Ct. 2024 (2014)

Rule:

Among the core aspects of sovereignty that Indian tribes possess—subject to congressional action—is the common-law immunity from suit traditionally enjoyed by sovereign powers. That immunity, the United States Supreme Court has explained, is a necessary corollary to Indian sovereignty and self-governance. And the qualified nature of Indian sovereignty modifies that principle only by placing a tribe’s immunity, like its other governmental powers and attributes, in Congress’s hands. Thus, the Supreme Court has time and again treated the doctrine of tribal immunity as settled law and dismissed any suit against a tribe absent congressional authorization (or a waiver). In doing so, the Court has held that tribal immunity applies no less to suits brought by States (including in their own courts) than to those by individuals. That is because tribal immunity is a matter of federal law and is not subject to diminution by the States. Or as the Supreme Court has explained: While each State at the Constitutional Convention surrendered its immunity from suit by sister States, it would be absurd to suggest that the tribes—at a conference to which they were not even parties—similarly ceded their immunity against state-initiated suits. 

Facts:

The State of Michigan, petitioner, entered into a compact with respondent Bay Mills Indian Community pursuant to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA). The compact authorizes Bay Mills to conduct class III gaming activities (i.e., to operate a casino) on Indian lands located within the State's borders, but prohibits it from doing so outside that territory. Bay Mills later opened a second casino on land it had purchased through a congressionally established land trust. The Tribe claimed it could operate a casino there because the property qualified as Indian land. Michigan disagreed and sued the Tribe under §2710(d)(7)(A)(ii), which allows a State to enjoin “class III gaming activity located on Indian lands and conducted in violation of any Tribal-State compact.” The District Court granted the injunction, but the Sixth Circuit vacated. It held that tribal sovereign immunity barred the suit unless Congress provided otherwise, and that §2710(d)(7)(A)(ii) only authorized suits to enjoin gaming activity located “on Indian lands,” whereas Michigan's complaint alleged the casino was outside such territory.

Issue:

Did tribal sovereign immunity bar Michigan’s suit against the Bay Mills Indian Community for opening a casino outside Indian lands?

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The U.S. Supreme Court held that Michigan's suit against Bay Mills is barred by tribal sovereign immunity. As “ 'domestic dependent nations,' ” Indian tribes exercise “inherent sovereign authority” that is subject to plenary control by Congress. Unless and “until Congress acts, the tribes retain” their historic sovereign authority. Among the core aspects of sovereignty that tribes possess--subject to congressional action--is the “common-law immunity from suit traditionally enjoyed by sovereign powers.” That immunity applies whether a suit is brought by a State, or arises from a tribe's commercial activities off Indian lands. Therefore, unless Congress has “unequivocally”  authorized Michigan's suit, it must be dismissed.

IGRA's plain terms do not authorize this suit. Section 2710(d)(7)(A)(ii) partially abrogates tribal immunity with respect to class III gaming located “on Indian lands,” but the very premise of Michigan's suit is that Bay Mills' casino is unlawful because it is outside Indian lands. Michigan argues that the casino is authorized, licensed, and operated from within the reservation, and that such administrative action constitutes “class III gaming activity.” However, numerous other IGRA provisions make clear that “class III gaming activity” refers to the gambling that goes on in a casino, not the off-site licensing of such games. IGRA's history and design also explain why Congress would have authorized a State to enjoin illegal tribal gaming on Indian lands but not on lands subject to the State's own sovereign jurisdiction. Congress adopted IGRA in response to, which held that States lacked regulatory authority over gaming on Indian lands but left intact States' regulatory power over tribal gaming outside Indian territory. A State therefore has many tools to enforce its law on state land that it does not possess in Indian territory, including, e.g., bringing a civil or criminal action against tribal officials rather than the tribe itself for conducting illegal gaming. A State can also use its leverage in negotiating an IGRA compact to bargain for a waiver of the tribe's immunity.