| Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued December 2, 2013 Decided May 27, 2014 | |
| Full case name | Michigan, Petitioner v. Bay Mills Indian Community et al. |
| Docket no. | 12-515 |
| Citations | 572 U.S. 782 (more) 134 S. Ct. 2024; 188 L. Ed. 2d 1071 |
| Argument | Oral argument |
| Opinion announcement | Opinion announcement |
| Case history | |
| Prior | 695 F.3d 406 (6th Cir. 2012) (affirmed) |
| Subsequent | On remand, Bay Mills Indian Community v. Snyder, 720 F. App'x 754 (6th Cir. 2018) |
| Holding | |
| Tribal sovereign immunity bars a lawsuit brought by the state against gaming off of Indian lands. Sixth Circuit affirmed. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Kagan, joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Breyer, Sotomayor |
| Concurrence | Sotomayor |
| Dissent | Scalia |
| Dissent | Thomas, joined by Scalia, Ginsburg, Alito |
| Dissent | Ginsburg |
| Laws applied | |
| Indian Gaming Regulatory Act | |
Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community, 572 U.S. 782 (2014), was a United States Supreme Court case examining whether a federal court has jurisdiction over activity that violates the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act but takes place off Indian lands, and, if so, whether tribal sovereign immunity prevents a state from suing in federal court.[1] In a 5–4 decision, the Court held that the State of Michigan's suit against Bay Mills is barred by tribal immunity.[2]