- Details
- By Tribal Business News Staff
- Gaming
An appellate court panel in Washington, D.C. rejected a Michigan tribe’s attempt to force the federal government to take land into trust for a casino project near Detroit.
In a June 28 ruling, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed a lower court's decision denying the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians’ application to have the Department of the Interior (DOI) take land into trust for a casino project near Detroit. The court's ruling supports the DOI’s conclusion that the tribe's plan did not meet the requirements under the Michigan Indian Land Claims Settlement Act, known as “the Michigan Act.”
The tribe sought to have the DOI take the 71-acre parcel at 3681 Sibley Road and I-275 near Detroit’s Metro Airport into trust under Section 108 of the Michigan Act. Section 108 allows for the use of settlement funds’ interest for purposes benefiting tribal members, such as education, social welfare, health, cultural, or charitable activities, as well as for consolidating or enhancing tribal lands.
The tribe intended to develop a casino on the Sibley parcel to generate revenue for tribal welfare programs, including elder benefits and scholarships. But the DOI and the courts found that the connection between the land purchase and the benefits for tribal members was too indirect. The initial plan allocated only a small portion of the casino profits to welfare programs, which the court deemed insufficient.
The DOI also highlighted uncertainties regarding the casino project’s compliance with the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), which generally prohibits casino gaming on off-reservation lands acquired after 1988, except under specific circumstances. The tribe also lacked a required revenue-sharing agreement with other Michigan tribes, the ruling found.
A district court had previously ruled that the Sibley Parcel purchase did not qualify as an expenditure for “educational, social welfare, health, cultural, or charitable purposes” as required by Section 108(c)(4) of the Michigan Act.
The appellate court agreed, emphasizing that the tribe’s intention to dedicate “a small sliver of the proposed casino’s hypothetical profit” didn’t fulfill the statute's requirements, according to the ruling.
