Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette last week 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 such a suit for injunctive relief against individuals, includ ing 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 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 Supreme Court’s ruling remands this case to district court for further proceedings.
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
http://legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
