Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community

Docket No.	Op. Below	Argument	Opinion	Vote	Author	Term
12-515	6th Cir.	Dec 2, 2013 Tr.Aud.	May 27, 2014	5-4	Kagan	OT 2013

Holding: Michigan's suit against the Bay Mills Indian Community to enjoin the tribe from operating a gaming facility on non-Indian lands is barred by tribal sovereign immunity.

Judgment: Affirmed and remanded, 5-4, in an opinion by Justice Kagan on May 27, 2014. Justice Sotomayor filed a concurring opinion. Justice Scalia filed a dissenting opinion. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Scalia, Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Alito joined. Justice Ginsburg filed a dissenting opinion.

SCOTUSblog Coverage

Opinion analysis: Michigan draws a bottom pair, but Indian Country does not have a straight flush (Markham Erickson)
Opinion details: Victory for Native American tribes . . . for now? (Amy Howe)
Argument preview: A tale of two sovereigns (Markham Erickson)
Solicitor General files invitation briefs for June 13 Conference (Amy Howe)
Stem cell dispute near end? (FINAL UPDATE) (Lyle Denniston)

Date	Proceedings and Orders (key to color coding)
Oct 23 2012	Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 26, 2012)
Nov 3 2012	Waiver of right of respondent Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians to respond filed.
Nov 26 2012	Brief of respondent Bay Mills Indian Community in opposition filed.
Dec 6 2012	Reply of petitioner Michigan filed.
Dec 12 2012	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 4, 2013.
Jan 7 2013	The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States.
May 14 2013	Brief amicus curiae of United States filed.
May 24 2013	Supplemental brief of petitioner Michigan filed.
May 28 2013	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 13, 2013.
Jun 17 2013	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 20, 2013.
Jun 24 2013	Petition GRANTED.
Jul 26 2013	The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including August 30, 2013.
Jul 26 2013	The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is extended to and including October 24, 2013.
Aug 30 2013	Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed)
Aug 30 2013	Brief of petitioner Michigan filed.
Sep 6 2013	Brief amicus curiae of State of Oklahoma filed.
Sep 6 2013	Brief amici curiae of Alabama, et al. filed.
Sep 17 2013	SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Monday, December 2, 2013.
Sep 17 2013	CIRCULATED
Sep 19 2013	Record from U.S.C.A. for 6th Circuit is electronic (Not on PACER).
Sep 19 2013	Record from U.S.D.C. for Western District of Michigan is electronic and located on PACER.
Oct 17 2013	Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the respondent.
Oct 22 2013	Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioner.
Oct 24 2013	Brief of respondent Bay Mills Indian Community filed. (Distributed)
Oct 24 2013	Letter proposing a lodging of a copy of arguments and decision in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia in Chadick v. Duncan, No.15,317 (D.C. March 2, 1894) received from counsel for the respondent. (Distributed)
Oct 31 2013	Brief amicus curiae of United States filed. (Distributed)
Oct 31 2013	Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.
Oct 31 2013	Brief amici curiae of National Congress of American Indians, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Oct 31 2013	Brief amici curiae of Seminole Tribe of Florida, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Oct 31 2013	Brief amici curiae of Scholars of American Indian Law filed. (Distributed)
Nov 5 2013	Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs in support of either party or neither party received from respondent Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians.
Nov 18 2013	Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED.
Nov 22 2013	Reply of petitioner Michigan filed. (Distributed)
Dec 2 2013	Argued. For petitioner: John J. Bursch, Michigan Solicitor General, Lansing, Mich. For respondents: Neal Kumar Katyal, Washington, D. C.; and Edwin S. Kneedler, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.)
May 27 2014	Judgment is affirmed and case remanded. Kagan, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Kennedy, Breyer, and Sotomayor, JJ., joined. Sotomayor, J., filed a concurring opinion. Scalia, J., filed a dissenting opinion. Thomas, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Scalia, Ginsburg, and Alito, JJ., joined. Ginsburg, J., filed a dissenting opinion.
Jun 30 2014	JUDGMENT ISSUED.

Featured Posts

Challengers urge justices to dismiss census case after district court ruling (Updated) – Amy Howe

Reargument analysis: Justices seek a “middle position” in takings litigation case – Miriam Seifter

Argument analysis: Justices have strong views about removal of class actions – Ronald Mann
Email Digest Sign-Up
Receive a daily email digest from Feedburner by entering your email.
Merits Case Pages and Archives

Archives

or

This Week at the Court
The Supreme Court released orders from the January 18 conference on Tuesday; the justices granted New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York.
On Tuesday, the justices released their opinion in Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc.
The justices will meet next for their February 15 conference.
The calendar for the February sitting, which will begin on Tuesday, February 19, is available on the Supreme Court's website.
Recent Decisions
- Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. The sale of an invention to a third party who is obligated to keep the invention confidential may place the invention “on sale” for purposes of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, which bars a person from receiving a patent on an invention that was “in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention,” 35 U. S. C. §102(a)(1).
- New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira A court should determine whether the Federal Arbitration Act’s Section 1 exclusion for disputes involving the “contracts of employment” of certain transportation workers applies before ordering arbitration; here, truck driver Dominic Oliveira’s independent contractor operating agreement with New Prime Inc. falls within that exception.
- Stokeling v. United States The Armed Career Criminal Act’s elements clause encompasses a robbery offense that, like Florida’s law, requires the criminal to overcome the victim’s resistance.
- Culbertson v. Berryhill The Social Security Act’s fee cap of 25 percent of past-due benefits imposed on attorneys who successfully represent Title II benefit claimants in court proceedings applies only to fees for court representation and not to aggregate fees for both court and agency representation.
- Henry Schein Inc. v. Archer and White Sales Inc. The “wholly groundless” exception to the general rule that courts must enforce contracts that delegate threshold arbitrability questions to an arbitrator, not a court, is inconsistent with the Federal Arbitration Act and Supreme Court precedent.
see all this term’s cases »
Current Relists
- Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda Whether the prohibition in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1), against employment discrimination “because of . . . sex” encompasses discrimination based on an individual’s sexual orientation.
- Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia Whether discrimination against an employee because of sexual orientation constitutes prohibited employment discrimination “because of . . . sex” within the meaning of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2.
- Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky Inc. (1) Whether a state may require health-care facilities to dispose of fetal remains in the same manner as other human remains, i.e., by burial or cremation; and (2) whether a state may prohibit abortions motivated solely by the race, sex or disability of the fetus and require abortion doctors to inform patients of the prohibition.
More Petitions »
Major Cases
- Lamone v. Benisek
  In case in which the plaintiffs allege that a Maryland congressional district was gerrymandered to retaliate against them for their political views: (1) whether the various legal claims articulated by the three-judge district court are unmanageable; (2) whether the three-judge district court erred when, in granting plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, it resolved disputes of material fact as to multiple elements of plaintiffs’ claims, failed to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and treated as “undisputed” evidence that is the subject of still-unresolved hearsay and other evidentiary objections; and (3) whether the three-judge district court abused its discretion in entering an injunction despite the plaintiffs’ years-long delay in seeking injunctive relief, rendering the remedy applicable to at most one election before the next decennial census necessitates another redistricting.
- Kisor v. Wilkie
  Whether the Supreme Court should overrule Auer v. Robbins and Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., which direct courts to defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of its own ambiguous regulation.
- Department of Commerce v. U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
  Whether, in an action seeking to set aside agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq., a district court may order discovery outside the administrative record to probe the mental processes of the agency decisionmaker—including by compelling the testimony of high-ranking Executive Branch officials—when there is no evidence that the decisionmaker disbelieved the objective reasons in the administrative record, irreversibly prejudged the issue, or acted on a legally forbidden basis.
- Rucho v. Common Cause
  (1) Whether plaintiffs have standing to press their partisan gerrymandering claims; (2) whether plaintiffs’ partisan gerrymandering claims are justiciable; and (3) whether North Carolina’s 2016 congressional map is, in fact, an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander.
- The American Legion v. American Humanist Association
  (1) Whether a 93-year-old memorial to the fallen of World War I is unconstitutional merely because it is shaped like a cross; (2) whether the constitutionality of a passive display incorporating religious symbolism should be assessed under the tests articulated in Lemon v. Kurtzman, Van Orden v. Perry, Town of Greece v. Galloway or some other test; and (3) whether, if the test from Lemon v. Kurtzman applies, the expenditure of funds for the routine upkeep and maintenance of a cross-shaped war memorial, without more, amounts to an excessive entanglement with religion in violation of the First Amendment.
- Gamble v. United States
  Whether the Supreme Court should overrule the “separate sovereigns” exception to the double jeopardy clause.
see all this term’s cases »
Recent Special Features
Statistical Snapshot

Cases argued 43

Cases decided 9

Summary reversals 2

Merits cases granted to date 73

see all »
Live Blog Archives
See all
Twitter Feed

Tweets by @SCOTUSblog

Full Calendar Submit Event

Jan. 2019

Su	Mo	Tu	We	Th	Fr	Sa
		1 Holiday	2	3	4 Conference	5
6	7 Orders MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORP. V. ALBRECHT (17-290) OBDUSKEY V. MCCARTHY & HOLTHUS LLP (17-1307)	8 HERRERA V. WYOMING (17-532) FOURTH ESTATE PUBLIC BENEFIT CORP. V. WALL-STREET.COM, LLC (17-571) Opinions	9 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD OF CALIFORNIA V. HYATT (17-1299)	10	11 Conference	12
13	14 Orders THACKER V. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY (17-1201) RIMINI STREET INC. V. ORACLE USA INC. (17-1625)	15 HOME DEPOT U.S.A. INC. V. JACKSON (17-1471) AZAR V. ALLINA HEALTH SERVICES (17-1484) Opinions	16 KNICK V. TOWNSHIP OF SCOTT, PENNSYLVANIA (17-647) TENNESSEE WINE AND SPIRITS RETAILERS ASSOCIATION V. BLAIR (18-96)	17	18 Conference	19
20	21 Holiday	22 Orders Opinions	23	24	25	26
27	28	29	30	31

Orders/Opinions
Arguments
Conferences

Events
Holidays
Multiple

Download our App in the Apple Store
First Mondays see all
Videos see all

Justice Sotomayor at Harvard

On November 13, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit and Judge Susan Carney of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit presided over the final round of the 2018 Ames Moot Court Competition at Harvard Law School.

Peabody Award
Awarded the Peabody Award for excellence in electronic media.
Sigma Delta Chi
Awarded the Sigma Delta Chi deadline reporting award for online coverage of the Affordable Care Act decision.
National Press Club Award
Awarded the National Press Club's Breaking News Award for coverage of the Affordable Care Act decision.
Silver Gavel Award
Awarded the Silver Gavel Award by the American Bar Association for fostering the American public’s understanding of the law and the legal system.
American Gavel Award
Awarded the American Gavel Award for Distinguished Reporting About the Judiciary to recognize the highest standards of reporting about courts and the justice system.
Webby Award
Awarded the Webby Award for excellence on the internet.

Cases argued	43
Cases decided	9
Summary reversals	2
Merits cases granted to date	73

Breaking News :

Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community

SCOTUSblog Coverage

Featured Posts

Challengers urge justices to dismiss census case after district court ruling (Updated) – Amy Howe

Reargument analysis: Justices seek a “middle position” in takings litigation case – Miriam Seifter

Argument analysis: Justices have strong views about removal of class actions – Ronald Mann

Email Digest Sign-Up

Merits Case Pages and Archives

Recent Decisions

Current Relists

Conference of January 18, 2019

Major Cases

Recent Special Features

Live Blog Archives

Jan. 2019

Download our App in the Apple Store

First Mondays see all

Videos see all

Peabody Award

Sigma Delta Chi

National Press Club Award

Silver Gavel Award

American Gavel Award

Webby Award