## Facts

- Michigan and the Bay Mills Indian Community entered a tribal–state compact under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) permitting class III gaming on “Indian lands” in Michigan and barring such gaming outside those lands.
- Using funds associated with a congressionally created land trust under a settlement statute, the Tribe purchased land in Vanderbilt, Michigan, far from its reservation, and opened a casino there.
- The Tribe asserted the Vanderbilt parcel qualified as “Indian lands” under IGRA.
- Michigan asserted the parcel was not “Indian lands,” so the casino violated state law and the compact.
- Michigan sued the Tribe in federal court under IGRA’s enforcement provision seeking to enjoin the casino; the district court granted a preliminary injunction closing it.
- The Sixth Circuit vacated, holding tribal sovereign immunity barred the suit because IGRA authorizes state suits only for class III gaming “located on Indian lands.”
- The Supreme Court granted review to decide whether tribal sovereign immunity bars Michigan’s suit to stop off-reservation gaming.

## Issues

1. Whether tribal sovereign immunity bars a state’s federal-court suit against a tribe to enjoin alleged off-reservation gaming conducted in violation of state law and a tribal–state compact.
2. Whether IGRA § 2710(d)(7)(A)(ii) abrogates tribal immunity for a state suit challenging gaming the state alleges is not on “Indian lands.”
3. Whether the Court should recognize a judicial exception to tribal immunity for off-reservation commercial activity that allegedly violates state law.

## Decision

- The Court affirmed the Sixth Circuit, holding that tribal sovereign immunity barred Michigan’s suit against the Tribe.
- Congress did not clearly abrogate tribal immunity for this kind of suit, and the Tribe did not waive immunity.
- IGRA § 2710(d)(7)(A)(ii) permits state suits only to enjoin “class III gaming activity located on Indian lands”; Michigan’s claim depended on the casino being outside Indian lands.
- The Court rejected Michigan’s attempt to treat on-reservation licensing or management decisions as the relevant “gaming activity”; the statute targets the gambling conducted at the casino’s location.
- The Court declined to overrule prior precedent extending tribal immunity to off-reservation commercial conduct and declined to create a new exception.
- The Court noted alternative enforcement options, including suits against tribal officials or employees for injunctive relief and the use of generally applicable state criminal laws against non-Indians.

## Legal Principles

- Indian tribes possess sovereign immunity from suit unless Congress unequivocally abrogates that immunity or the tribe clearly waives it.
- Tribal sovereign immunity extends to off-reservation commercial activity unless limited by Congress.
- IGRA’s abrogation of tribal immunity is limited to the statutory text authorizing state suits to enjoin class III gaming “located on Indian lands.”
- Courts will not expand a comprehensive statutory remedial scheme by inferring additional remedies beyond those expressly provided.

## Conclusion

The Court held that tribal sovereign immunity barred Michigan’s federal action to enjoin the Tribe’s off-reservation casino because IGRA authorizes state suits only for class III gaming located on Indian lands and Congress did not clearly permit this broader claim.


Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Cmty., 572 U.S. 782 (2014)