Justice Kagan authored the Court’s opinion. Justice Sotomayor filed a concurring opinion. Justice Scalia filed a dissenting opinion. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Scalia, Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Alito joined.
“Tribes have won few victories at the U.S. Supreme Court in recent years, but today in a case with implications for every tribe in the country, our sovereignty was upheld” said President Shelly. “Tribal sovereignty is not an abstract concept to be curtailed at the whim of a state. It is the concrete foundation of a government-to-government relationship that has shaped the federal relationship with Native Americans. We commend the court for following precedent. The Navajo Nation remains cautiously optimistic about the ruling because while sovereign immunity was upheld, the Court indicates other tools at the state of Michigan’s disposal that erode sovereignty.”
The Navajo Nation joined an amicus brief, which supported the sovereignty of the Bay Mills Indian Community.
Kagan wrote, “The upshot is this: Unless Congress has authorized Michigan’s suit, our precedents demand that it be dismissed. 4 And so Michigan, naturally enough, makes two arguments: first, that IGRA indeed abrogates the Tribe’s immunity from the State’s suit; and second, that if it does not, we should revisit—and reverse—our decision in Kiowa, so that tribal immunity no longer applies to claims arising from commercial activity outside Indian lands. We consider—and reject—each contention in turn.”
Amy Howe with Scotusblog wrote that “the majority left open the possibility that the state could still accomplish its goal – shutting down the casino – through other means.”
The states can still sue tribes for illegal gaming activity on Indian lands, but Howe notes, “they cannot sue them for the same activity off Indian lands.” The Court found that it “does not revise legislation . . . just because the text as written creates an apparent anomaly as to some subject it does not address.”
Kagan wrote, “…the resulting world, when considered functionally, is not nearly so “enigma[tic]” as Michigan suggests. True enough, a State lacks the ability to sue a tribe for illegal gaming when that activity occurs off the reservation. But a State, on its own lands, has many other powers over tribal gaming that it does not possess(absent consent) in Indian territory. Unless federal law provides differently, “Indians going beyond reservation boundaries” are subject to any generally applicable state law.”