Taxpayers of Mich. Against Casinos v. State
Citation | 471 Mich. 306,685 N.W.2d 221 |
Decision Date | 30 July 2004 |
Docket Number | Docket No. 122830, Calendar No. 6. |
Parties | TAXPAYERS OF MICHIGAN AGAINST CASINOS, and Laura Baird, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. The STATE of Michigan, Defendant-Appellee, and North American Sports Management Company, Inc, IV, and Gaming Entertainment, LLC., Intervening Defendants-Appellees. |
Court | Supreme Court of Michigan |
Warner Norcross & Judd LLP (by Robert J. Jonker, William C. Fulkerson, Norbert F. Kugele, and Daniel K. DeWitt), Grand Rapids, MI, for the Taxpayers of Michigan Against Casinos.
Barris, Sott, Denn & Driker, P.L.L.C. (by Eugene Driker and Thomas F. Cavalier), Detroit, MI, for the state of Michigan.
Dykema Gossett PLLC (by Richard D. McLellan, Bruce G. Davis, R. Lance Boldrey, and Kristine N. Tuma), Lansing, MI, for intervening defendant Gaming Entertainment, LLC.
Rhoades McKee (by Bruce W. Neckers and Bruce A. Courtade), Grand Rapids, MI, for the Grand Rapids Area Chamber of Commerce.
Senate Majority Counsel (by Alfred H. Hall, Michael G. O'Brien, Phillip A. Hendges, and Pamela S. Haynes), Lansing, for Senate Majority Leader Ken Sikkema and Senator Shirley Johnson.
Miller, Canfield, Paddock and Stone, P.L.C. (by Kevin J. Moody and Jaclyn Shoshana Levine), Lansing, MI, for the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians.
Kanji & Katzen, PLLC (by Riyaz A. Kanji), Ann Arbor, MI, and Drummond, Woodsum & MacMahon (by Kaighn Smith and Robert Gips), Portland, Maine, for the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians, the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, and the Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians of Michigan.
James A. Bransky, General Counsel, Petoskey, MI, for the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians.
Michael G. Phelan, Dowagiac, MI, for the Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians.
Wheeler Upham, P.C. (by Geoffrey L. Gillis), Grand Rapids, MI, and Sonosky, Chambers, Sachse, Endreson & Perry, LLP (by William R. Perry and Mary P. Pavel), Washington, DC, for the Nottawaseppi Huron Band of Potawatatomi.
William Brooks, Mainstee, MI, for the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians.
Schuitmaker, Cooper & Schuitmaker, P.C. (by Harold Schuitmaker), Paw Paw, MI, for the city of New Buffalo.
Dewane, Peterson, McMahon & Cullitan, P.L.C. (by David M. Peterson), St. Joseph, MI, for the New Buffalo Township.
In this declaratory action, we must determine: (1) whether House Concurrent Resolution (HCR) 115 (1998), the Legislature's approval by resolution of tribal-state gaming compacts, constituted "legislation" and therefore violated Const. 1963, art. 4, ž 22; (2) whether the compacts' amendatory provision providing that the Governor may amend the compacts without legislative approval violates the separation of powers doctrine found in Const 1963, art 3, ž 2; and (3) whether HCR 115 is a local act in violation of Const. 1963, art. 4, ž 29.
We hold that the Legislature's approval of the compacts through HCR 115 did not constitute legislation. In approving those compacts by resolution, the Legislature did not modify Michigan law in any respect; instead, the Legislature simply expressed its approval of valid contracts between two independent, sovereign entities. Although Michigan's gaming law would have applied to gaming on tribal lands in the absence of a tribal-state compact, it applied only as a matter of federal law. Compacts establishing the terms of class III gaming on tribal lands modified only federal law. Therefore, our Constitution does not require that our Legislature express its approval of these compacts through bill rather than resolution.
We further hold that although the issue of the amendment provision in the compacts may now be ripe for review, the lower courts have yet to review this issue and make any specific findings regarding whether the amendatory provision in the compacts, as now invoked by Governor Granholm, violates the separation of powers provisions found in Const 1963, art 3, ž 2. Finally, we hold that HCR 115 is not a "local act" and therefore does not violate Const. 1963, art. 4, ž 29. Accordingly, we remand the amendment provision issue to the Court of Appeals for consideration, but otherwise affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals.
Knowledge of the underlying federal law is necessary to understand the factual posture of this case. In California v. Cabazon, 480 U.S. 202, 207, 107 S.Ct. 1083, 94 L.Ed.2d 244 (1987), the United States Supreme Court held that state laws may only be applied to tribal lands "if Congress has expressly so provided." The Court held that because Congress had not provided for the regulation of tribal gaming, a state could only prohibit gaming on tribal lands if the state completely prohibited all gaming within its borders.
In response to Cabazon, Congress passed the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), 25 USC 2701 et seq., which divides gaming activities into three classes. Class I gaming consists of "social games solely for prizes of minimal value or traditional forms of Indian gaming engaged in by individuals as a part of, or in connection with, tribal ceremonies or celebrations." 25 USC 2703(6). Class II gaming includes bingo and card games (but not banking card games) that are played in conformance with state laws and regulations regarding hours of operation and limitations on wagers or pot sizes. 25 USC 2703(7). Class III gaming includes all other forms of gambling, including casino gaming. 25 USC 2703(8).
At issue in this case is class III gaming. Under IGRA, tribes may engage in class III gaming only pursuant to a tribal-state compact that is approved by the Secretary of the Interior. 25 USC 2710(d) provides, in relevant part:
Through ž 2710(d), Congress expressly provided for tribal-state negotiations regarding class III gaming. Through this compacting process, the tribes and the states may agree to the terms governing such gaming.
The compacts at issue in this case were first signed by Governor Engler and four Indian tribes2 in January of 1997. Each compact provided that it would take effect after "[e]ndorsement by the Governor of the State and concurrence in that endorsement by resolution of the Michigan Legislature."3 The compacts were modified and re-executed in December 1998, and the Legislature then approved the compacts by resolution through HCR 115.4
The validity of the 1998 compacts was challenged through several lawsuits.5 Plaintiffs filed this suit against defendant in the Ingham Circuit Court, seeking a declaratory judgment that the compacts do not comport with various constitutional provisions. Plaintiffs argue that the compacts amount to legislation and, therefore, pursuant to Const 1963, art 4, ž 22 the Legislature was required to adopt them by bill rather than approve them by resolution. The circuit court held that the compacts should have been approved by bill. The Court of Appeals reversed the circuit court decision, concluding that the compacts do not constitute legislation because they contain no enforcement provision that would ensure that their terms are satisfied and because the power of the state to legislate in this area is preempted by federal law. The Court of Appeals opined that the compacts constitute mere contracts and, therefore, approval by resolution was not constitutionally infirm.
Plaintiffs also contend that the provision in the compacts that purports to empower the Governor to amend them without legislative approval violates Const 1963, art 3, ž 2, the "separation of powers" doctrine. The circuit court agreed with plaintiffs. The Court of Appeals, however, reversed the decision of the circuit court on the basis that the amendatory provision issue was not...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Studier v. MPSERB, Docket No. 125765
...This Court reviews de novo a trial court's decision regarding a motion for summary disposition. Taxpayers of Michigan Against Casinos v. Michigan, 471 Mich. 306, 317, 685 N.W.2d 221 (2004). This case also involves constitutional issues, as well as issues of statutory construction. These iss......
-
Alabama v. PCI Gaming Auth.
...itself does not expressly authorize a State to sue anyone, much less an Indian tribe.”); see also Taxpayers of Mich. Against Casinos v. Michigan, 471 Mich. 306, 685 N.W.2d 221, 229 (2004) (Section 1166 “does not grant the state regulatory authority over tribal gaming,” and it “is not a way ......
-
Taxpayers against Casinos v. State
...within the limits of the constitution — to amend the compacts. The compacts were properly approved by legislative resolution.2 As stated in TOMAC I, "our does not require that our Legislature express its approval of these compacts through bill rather than resolution." TOMAC I, supra at 313......
-
Township of Casco v. Secretary of State
...Creek Drain Dist. v. Extrusions Div., Inc., 468 Mich. 367, 373, 663 N.W.2d 436 (2003). 31. Taxpayers of Michigan Against Casinos v. Michigan, 471 Mich. 306, 317-318, 685 N.W.2d 221 (2004); Wayne Co. v. Hathcock, 471 Mich. 445, 455, 684 N.W.2d 765 (2004); DeRose v. DeRose, 469 Mich. 320, 326......
-
LAWYERING THE INDIAN CHILD WELFARE ACT.
...see Brief of Amicus Curiae Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa & Chippewa Indians et al., Taxpayers of Mich. Against Casinos v. State, 685 N.W.2d 221 (Mich. 2004) (No. (71.) Duane Champagne, Challenges to Native Nation Building in the 21st Century, 34 Ariz. St. L.J. 47, 53 (2002); see also 25......