The U.S. Supreme Court agreed June 24 to hear the case of Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community in its next term. The Bay Mills Indian Community (Tribe) had purchased fee land in Vanderbilt, Michigan, about 100 miles from its reservation, with earnings from a trust established by the Michigan Indian Land Claims Settlement Act (Act). Citing a provision in the Act that "earnings generated by the Land Trust shall be used exclusively for improvements on tribal land or the consolidation and enhancement of tribal landholdings through purchase or exchange" and that "[a]ny land acquired with funds from the Land Trust shall be held as Indian lands are held," the Tribe opened a casino. The Department of the Interior determined that the Vanderbilt land did not satisfy the criteria of the Act and that the casino was not on Indian land, as required by the IGRA. The National Indian Gaming Commission, finding its own enforcement authority limited to violations on Indian lands, refused to take action, noting that "when the Commission obtains information that may indicate a violation of federal, state, or tribal statutes, it is obligated to turn that information over to the appropriate law enforcement officials." After the State of Michigan sued, a federal district court enjoined operation of the casino, but the Sixth Circuit reversed, holding that, under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), the federal courts had jurisdiction only over allegations of IGRA violations occurring on Indian lands and that the Tribe was immune from suit. The questions presented, according to Michigan, are:

1. Whether a federal court has jurisdiction to enjoin activity that violates IGRA but takes place outside of Indian lands.
2. Whether tribal sovereign immunity bars a state from suing in federal court to enjoin a tribe from violating IGRA outside of Indian lands.

The case will likely be argued orally next fall and decided by the end of the Court's 2013-14 term. See, 2013 WL 3155256 (Mem), 81 USLW 3251, U.S., June 24, 2013 (NO. 12-515).