When the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear a dispute about tribal sovereign immunity, the Bay Mills Indian Community was worried about its chances before the high court. “The tribe had lost pretty much every case in the last quarter-century,” said Neal Katyal, co-leader of Hogan Lovells’ appellate practice, who argued for the tribe.
Michigan state officials had sued the tribe, claiming it was illegally operating a casino outside of tribal lands. The tribe argued it was immune because, under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, the state could only bring a lawsuit over allegedly unlawful gambling activities on Indian lands; the two sides disagreed over whether the casino was located on Indian land.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
