The
U.S. Supreme Court
decision in
Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community affirmed the principle of tribal sovereign immunity but not everyone agrees the case affects tribal-owned Internet lending companies.
Immediately after the ruling was handed down last month, the
National Consumer Law Center
sent out a
press
release that claimed the decision opens the door for states to take action against tribes that do business beyond reservation borders.
That interpretation, however, is being questioned by an attorney who works in Indian law.
"The decision focuses on a gambling statute and the reach of the state to individuals off tribal property only," Andrew Sandler of BuckleySandler told The American Banker. "It is less than clear how this decision applies to online tribal-affiliated lending activities or related enforcement by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau or state agencies."
In his dissent,
Justice
Clarence Thomas specifically referred to the Internet lending industry. He said non-Indian companies are using "tribal immunity as a shield for conduct of questionable legality."
Get the Story:
How a High Court Ruling on Tribal Powers May Impact Payday Lending
(The American Banker 6/9)
Register for a free trial to access the full text of the article.
Supreme Court Decision:
Michigan
v. Bay Mills Indian Community (May 27, 2014)
Related Stories
Group claims Supreme Court
ruling affects tribal payday lenders (05/30)
Join the Conversation
