BREAKING NEWS... BREAKING NEWS... BREAKING NEWS... U.S. Supreme Court Rules Against Michigan Ban Against Bay Mills Indian Casino....... The U.S. Supreme Court in a ruling released late this morning has rejected Michigans Attempt to Ban the Bay Mills Indian Casino from operating on their lands. A lower court had issued an injuction that ordered the closing of their Casino 90 Miles south of their Reservation on property they had purchased with money they had received for compensation when the Government took a portion of their lands granted under a treaty. The Supreme Court voted 5-4 to reject the lower courts interference in tribal sovereignty and further stated that under U.S. Law a State can not interfere with the Bay Mills Indian Nations Soverign Immunity under their own laws on their land. Bay Mills owns the property where the old Downtown Post Office is and had plans to develop and open an Indian Casino in Port Huron after opening Indian Gaming in Vanderbuilt in 2010. JUST IN FROM THE DETROIT NEWS.......... WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision today that tribal immunity bars the state from suing an American Indian tribe for operating an off-reservation casino in a tiny town in northern Michigan. Writing for the majority, Justice Elena Kagen said the state of Michigan has numerous options for stopping the Bay Mills Indian Community from operating an off-reservation gambling hall — including bringing criminal charges against tribe officials if it chooses. But as a domestic sovereign entity, the tribe is protected from being sued by the state unless Congress rules otherwise, Kagen wrote. She sent the case back to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals for disposal, leaving unknown for now, whether the small casino could someday reopen. “Congress and the Supreme Court have long recognized that a state cannot interfere with an Indian tribe’s sovereignty,” said Bay Mills’ lawyer, Neal Katyal. “We are gratified that the court reaffirmed that longstanding principle today. Bay Mills, a federally recognized tribe, depends for its livelihood on revenues from gaming activities.” State Attorney General Bill Schuette, whose office argued the case before the U.S. Supreme Court in December, did not immediately react to the decision. It was a ruling anxiously awaited by Indian groups worried that an adverse ruling could result in numerous lawsuits for off-reservation activities. The case revolved around a small casino opened in 2010 in Vanderbilt in the northern Lower Peninsula, far from the tribe’s Upper Peninsula reservation. The tribe argued that the land was bought with interest from a federal land settlement and should be open to Indian gambling. The state sued in federal court but ran into a roadblock: The federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act applies to casinos operated on Indian land, but not off them. And neither the state nor the federal government considered the Vanderbilt land to be Indian land. Schuette’s lawyers acknowledged in court they could arrest tribal employees or otherwise take legal action against them individually for operating an illegal casino. But they argued it made more sense for federal courts to limit tribal immunity for commercial activities off-reservation. Kagan disagreed, writing an opinion in which she was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor. In it, she reaffirmed the court’s belief that it “is fundamentally Congress’ job to determine whether and how to limit tribal immunity.” In a dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas said there is no rationale for the court to continue extending tribal immunity to off-reservation commercial activity, saying the protection “significantly limits, and often extinguishes, the state’s ability to protect their citizens and enforce the law.” “This case is but one example: No one can seriously dispute that Bay Mills’ operation of a casino outside its reservation ... would violate both state law and the Tribe’s compact with Michigan. Yet immunity poses a substantial impediment to Michigan’s efforts to halt the casino’s operation,” he wrote. Justices Antonin Scalia, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Samuel Alito joined Thomas. Scalia and Ginsburg also wrote their own dissents.
Posted on: Tue, 27 May 2014 16:14:32 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015