Logourl black
From our private database of 14,000+ case briefs...

Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community

United States Supreme Court
134 S. Ct. 2024 (2014)


Facts

Under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), 25 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq., an Indian tribe may conduct gaming on Indian land only pursuant to a compact with the surrounding state. In 1993, the State of Michigan (plaintiff) and the Bay Mills Indian Community (Bay Mills) (defendant) entered into a compact regarding Indian gaming. The compact permitted Bay Mills to operate a casino on reservation land, but prohibited gaming on land owned by Michigan. Neither party to the compact waived sovereign immunity. In 2010, Bay Mills opened a casino on land owned by Michigan, which Bay Mills claimed as tribal, ancestral land. Invoking both the compact and IGRA, Michigan sued in federal court to enjoin Bay Mills from operating the casino outside tribal land. The district court issued a preliminary injunction against Bay Mills and closed the casino. Bay Mills filed an interlocutory appeal. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed, holding that Bay Mills was protected against suit by tribal sovereign immunity. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Kagan, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Concurrence (Sotomayor, J.)

The concurrence section is for members only and includes a summary of the concurring judge or justice’s opinion.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Dissent (Ginsburg, J.)

The dissent section is for members only and includes a summary of the dissenting judge or justice’s opinion.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Dissent (Thomas, J.)

The dissent section is for members only and includes a summary of the dissenting judge or justice’s opinion.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Dissent (Scalia, J.)

The dissent section is for members only and includes a summary of the dissenting judge or justice’s opinion.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 173,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.