The district court granted a preliminary injunction.

13 Michigan disagreed and, with a competing tribe, sued Bay Mills to enjoin the casino’s operation. 11 In 2010, Bay Mills used funds from a federally established trust to purchase off-reservation land, which was, under federal law, to “be held as Indian lands are held.” 12 Bay Mills built and operated a casino on this land, claiming that it counted as Indian land under IGRA. 10 In 1993, the Bay Mills Indian Community (Bay Mills), a federally recognized Indian tribe, entered into a tribal gaming compact with the State of Michigan that allowed class III gaming activities on Indian lands. 9 The Act also allows states to sue tribes to enjoin unauthorized gaming activity on Indian lands. 8 IGRA requires Indian tribes seeking to operate casinos to enter a state-tribe compact that governs the gaming activity. In 1988, Congress passed the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act 7 (IGRA) to regulate gaming activities on Indian land. Such a view would be inconsistent with recent trends generally favoring greater federal control and congressional support for tribal self-determination, and could result in actions that are detrimental to tribes. 6 While the Court’s decision is a victory for those who feared the abrogation of tribal immunity, its suggestion that states seek remedies in state law signals approval of leaving the resolution of legal questions central to state-tribe disputes to the states, even when the question concerns the extent of Indian land.

The Court held that a tribe is immune from suit for commercial activities on nontribal land so long as federal law has not expressly waived immunity, 5 but noted in dicta that a state may use alternative, state-specific enforcement measures against individuals affiliated with the commercial activity. Bay Mills Indian Community, 4 the Supreme Court reaffirmed the broad reach of tribal immunity. 2 Subsequent economic development by some Indian tribes has resulted in an increasing number of legal disputes that have run up against tribal immunity, and some have argued that tribal immunity should be limited in commercial contexts to allow state and federal courts to adjudicate business disputes between nonmembers and tribes. Manufacturing Technologies, Inc., 1 the Supreme Court affirmed that tribes retain sovereign immunity when engaged in off-reservation commercial activity. Sixteen years ago, in Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma v. Courts have long held that Native American governments enjoy tribal sovereign immunity from suit, subject only to Congress’s plenary authority.

Kiowa casino employees