Taxpayers of Michigan Against Casinos v. State, 471 Mich. 306

685 N.W.2d 221 (Mich. 2004) · Supreme Court of Michigan · July 30, 2004 · No. 122830

Summary

The Supreme Court of Michigan held that the Legislature's approval of tribal-state gaming compacts through House Concurrent Resolution 115 did not constitute legislation requiring enactment by bill. The court concluded that the compacts were contracts between sovereign entities and that the resolution did not violate the Michigan Constitution's local-acts clause. The court remanded the issue of whether the compacts' amendment provision violated separation of powers because the lower courts had not addressed that issue on the merits.

Holdings

  1. The Legislature's approval of the tribal-state gaming compacts through HCR 115 did not constitute legislation. The compacts were contracts between sovereign entities rather than unilateral regulations, so Michigan Constitution article 4, § 22 did not require approval by bill.
  2. Because the compacts were not legislation and Michigan's Constitution did not prescribe a particular approval method for contracts of this type, the Legislature had discretion to approve them by concurrent resolution.
  3. The amendment-provision issue was ripe after Governor Granholm attempted amendments, but the Supreme Court would not decide it without a developed lower-court record. The issue was remanded to the Court of Appeals for consideration, with authority to remand to the trial court if additional fact-finding was necessary.
  4. HCR 115 was not a local act and therefore did not violate Michigan Constitution article 4, § 29.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether legislative approval of tribal-state gaming compacts through HCR 115 constituted legislation that Michigan Constitution article 4, § 22 required to be enacted by bill.
  2. Whether the compact provision allowing the Governor to amend the compacts without legislative approval violated Michigan Constitution article 3, § 2's separation-of-powers requirement.
  3. Whether HCR 115 constituted a local or special act prohibited by Michigan Constitution article 4, § 29.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded

Cases Cited (17)

  • California v. Cabazon Band of Indians, 480 U.S. 202, 107 S. Ct. 1083, 94 L. Ed. 2d 244 (1987)(followed)
  • Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. (6 Pet.) 515, 557, 8 L. Ed. 483 (1832)(followed)
  • United States v. Wheeler, 435 U.S. 313, 323, 98 S. Ct. 1079, 55 L. Ed. 2d 303 (1978)(followed)
  • Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma v. Manufacturing Technologies, Inc., 523 U.S. 751, 754, 756, 118 S. Ct. 1700, 140 L. Ed. 2d 981 (1998)(followed)
  • Gaming Corp. of America v. Dorsey & Whitney, 88 F.3d 536, 545-547 (8th Cir. 1996)(followed)
  • Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 58, 76 n.18, 116 S. Ct. 1114, 134 L. Ed. 2d 252 (1996)(followed)
  • United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians v. Oklahoma, 927 F.2d 1170, 1177 (10th Cir. 1991)(followed)
  • AT&T Corp. v. Coeur d'Alene Tribe, 295 F.3d 899, 909 (9th Cir. 2002)(followed)
  • Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation v. Johnson, 135 Wash. 2d 734, 750, 958 P.2d 260 (1998)(followed)
  • Kansas v. Finney, 251 Kan. 559, 836 P.2d 1169 (1992)(distinguished)

Showing top 10 of 17.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Download CaseDownload Case DataDownload Case and DataDownload AI Instructions

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…

More from Michigan Supreme Court