October Term 2013 · Docket 12-515

Can a state sue a tribe for off-reservation gaming?

Michigan seeks to sue Bay Mills for operating a casino off its reservation. The tribe claims sovereign immunity blocks the suit.

Official caption
Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Michigan argues the tribe waived immunity through commercial conduct.

    The tribe argues Congress did not authorize state suits.

    Justice Sotomayor asked why Michigan did not file its own injunction.

    Justice Kagan asked if the arbitration agreement waived immunity.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

Michigan argues the tribe waived immunity by operating off-reservation. The tribe argues Congress did not authorize such suits.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on December 2, 2013.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

Michigan wants to sue the tribe for off-reservation gaming.

The tribe wants to dismiss the state lawsuit.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

Michigan argues the tribe waived immunity through commercial conduct.

The tribe argues Congress did not authorize state suits.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Sotomayor asked why Michigan did not file its own injunction.

Justice Kagan asked if the arbitration agreement waived immunity.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case defines state power over tribal commercial activity. It determines whether states can regulate off-reservation gaming.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON