Bay Mills Indian Community v. Gretchen Whitmer

Summary

**Key Legal Topics:** Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) – "Indian lands" definition; Michigan Indian Land Claims Settlement Act (MILCSA) § 107(a)(3) interpretation; statutory construction; summary judgment; stipulation; advisory opinions; tribal sovereignty; administrative exhaustion; preclusion; indispensable party. **Holdings:** The Sixth Circuit vacated summary judgment for the Governor, holding that the district court erred by interpreting a single phrase of MILCSA § 107(a)(3) in isolation, contrary to the canon requiring statutes to be read as a whole. The court also identified unresolved factual disputes (whether the Vanderbilt parcel was purchased with Land Trust funds) and potential issues regarding NIGC proceedings, including possible preclusion and whether the NIGC is an indispensable party, and remanded for further proceedings.

Holdings

1. The district court erred in granting summary judgment because the parties' stipulation improperly required the court to interpret a statutory phrase in isolation, contrary to the fundamental canon of statutory construction that words must be read in context. Additionally, there remains a genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether the Vanderbilt parcel was purchased with Land Trust funds, which must be resolved before the statutory question can be addressed.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment based on an isolated interpretation of the second sentence of § 107(a)(3) of MILCSA without considering the statute as a whole and without resolving a factual dispute about the source of funds used to purchase the land.

Disposition

vacated