Does the Recent Supreme Court Decision in Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community Open the Floodgates for Lawsuits Against Tribal Officials?

The United States Supreme Court decided the Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community case on May 27, 2014. In that case, the State of Michigan argued that it had the authority to sue the Bay Mills Indian Community (“Bay Mills”) for operating an illegal casino located on lands outside of the Bay Mills reservation. Bay Mills argued that it had sovereign immunity and could not be sued unless the tribe consented to the lawsuit or Congress abrogated tribal sovereign immunity. The Supreme Court decided that under Kiowa Tribe v. Manufacturing Technologies, 523 U.S. 751 (1998), Bay Mills was immune from suit and that it would not revisit that decision. In addition, the Court found that Bay Mills had not consented to suit and that Congress had not abrogated tribal immunity under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act for the claims Michigan brought.

 

The Court did state, however, that Michigan could pursue a claim against individual tribal officers under the Ex parte Young doctrine. Ex parte Young is an action for injunctive or declaratory relief against an official who is acting in violation of federal law. It has been used in the past against state officials to enforce federal law in situations where the State itself is immune from suit. The doctrine has important limits in that it must be used to enforce federal law, not state, local or tribal laws; it cannot be used to claim damages and it cannot be used if the relief sought impacts core governmental functions of the immune entity.

 

This webinar will discuss the factual background in the Bay Mills decision; the pending litigation between the two parties and the impact of the Court’s statement that the Ex parte Young doctrine applies to Indian tribes. The contours of the Ex parte Young doctrine will be discussed, outlining the limits of its use.