## Facts

- Michigan’s governor entered into tribal–state gaming compacts under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) with four Michigan tribes; the compacts were amended in 1998.
- The Michigan Legislature approved the compacts and amendments through House Concurrent Resolution 115 (HCR 115) rather than through enactment of a bill presented to the governor.
- A taxpayer organization and a state representative filed a declaratory action asserting the approval method and certain compact terms were unconstitutional.
- Plaintiffs argued (i) HCR 115 was “legislation” that had to be enacted by bill under Mich. Const. 1963, art. 4, § 22; (ii) a compact clause allowing the governor to approve amendments without further legislative approval violated separation of powers under art. 3, § 2; and (iii) HCR 115 was an unconstitutional “local act” under art. 4, § 29.
- The circuit court agreed in part, concluding the concurrent resolution amounted to “legislation” and thus rendered the compacts constitutionally defective.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, holding the Legislature could approve the compacts by concurrent resolution and rejecting the asserted constitutional violations.

## Issues

1. Whether legislative approval of the tribal–state compacts by concurrent resolution constituted “legislation” requiring enactment by bill under Mich. Const. 1963, art. 4, § 22.
2. Whether the compacts’ amendatory provision authorizing the governor to approve amendments without further legislative approval violated separation of powers under Mich. Const. 1963, art. 3, § 2.
3. Whether HCR 115 was a prohibited “local act” under Mich. Const. 1963, art. 4, § 29.

## Decision

- The Michigan Supreme Court held that HCR 115 was not “legislation” under art. 4, § 22 because approving the compacts did not modify Michigan law; it expressed approval of contracts authorized by federal law.
- The Court held that HCR 115 was not a “local act” under art. 4, § 29.
- The Court determined the separation-of-powers challenge to the amendatory provision was ripe, but remanded because the lower courts had not addressed the merits or developed findings regarding the provision’s use.
- The Court affirmed the Court of Appeals in relevant part and remanded solely for consideration of the separation-of-powers issue.

## Legal Principles

- “Legislation” under Mich. Const. 1963, art. 4, § 22 requires enactment by bill; legislative action that does not change Michigan statutory law may be accomplished through a concurrent resolution.
- Tribal–state gaming compacts under IGRA function as agreements between sovereigns authorized by federal law; legislative approval of such compacts may operate without altering state statutes.
- A constitutional separation-of-powers claim challenging executive authority to amend compacts may be justiciable when the authority is invoked, but appellate review may be deferred until the issue is addressed by the lower courts.
- A measure is not a “local act” under Mich. Const. 1963, art. 4, § 29 merely because it concerns particular tribes or lands; the inquiry focuses on whether it is truly local or special legislation as constitutionally defined.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Michigan’s approval of tribal gaming compacts by concurrent resolution, concluding the approval was neither “legislation” requiring enactment by bill nor a prohibited local act, and it remanded for further proceedings on whether the compacts’ amendment mechanism impermissibly shifted power to the executive.


Taxpayers of Mich. Against Casinos v. State, 471 Mich. 306, 685 N.W.2d 221 (Mich. 2004)