Editorial: States need power to restrict number of tribal casinos

The shuttered Bay Mills Indian Community casino in Vanderbilt, Michigan. Photo © Bay Mills News

Newspaper comments on the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community:
It doesn't appear last week's U.S. Supreme Court decision preventing Michigan from suing an American Indian tribe for operating an off-reservation casino will open the door to a proliferation of new casinos in Michigan, Wisconsin and elsewhere.

The court ruled 5-4 that as a sovereign entity, the tribe is immune from lawsuits by a state unless Congress rules otherwise.

This situation deserves watching to see if or when the casino is shut down. If it isn't, it likely will embolden tribes elsewhere to challenge restrictions on where and how many tribal casinos they can operate. The court should have settled the matter. Instead, Michigan authorities will be forced to charge tribal officials with a crime, hardly the best way to foster good relations.

The casinos have been money machines for many otherwise impoverished tribes. Profits wisely invested can help lift tribal members out of poverty. But for every gambling winner there are more losers, and that's why states need the authority to limit the number of casinos. Hopefully the Supreme Court ruling won't strip states of their ability to do so.

Get the Story:
Editorial: Court erred in casino ruling (The Eau Claire Leader-Telegram 6/1)

Supreme Court Decision:
Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community (May 27, 2014)

Oral Arguments on the Indianz.Com SoundCloud:

Relevant Documents:
Oral Argument Transcript | Supreme Court Docket Sheet No. 12-515 | Supreme Court Order List

6th Circuit Decision:
Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community (August 15, 2012)

Related Stories
NIGA welcomes ruling in Bay Mills off-reservation gaming case (5/30)

Join the Conversation