Supreme Court Hears Case About Lawsuits Against Indian Tribes
Could affect commercial and gaming activities within sovereign territories
A small, shuttered casino in a tiny northern Michigan town is at the center of a case coming before the U.S. Supreme Court today that could redefine when American Indian tribes can be sued and under what conditions.
A far-reaching decision — if the court makes one — could impact all sorts of commercial activities taken by tribes: from casino gambling to payday lending, and give state governments more leeway to sue American Indian groups.
As it stands now, the federal government can file suit against a tribe, but states are largely barred from doing so unless a tribe either has agreed to waive its sovereign immunity or had it abrogated by Congress.
But the Michigan attorney general's office is arguing that immunity shouldn't stop its suit to block the Bay Mills tribe from opening a casino outside of tribal lands, since the federal government has so far declined to act.
Hide Comments (0)
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post commentsMute this user?
Ban this user?
Un-ban this user?
Nuke this user?
Un-nuke this user?
Flag this comment?
Un-flag this comment?