UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. BAY MILLS INDIAN COMMUNITY; GRAND TRAVERSE BAND OF OTTAWA AND CHIPPEWA INDIANS; LITTLE RIVER BAND OF OTTAWA INDIANS; LITTLE TRAVERSE BAY BANDS OF ODAWA INDIANS, SAULT STE. MARIE TRIBE OF CHIPPEWA INDIANS v. STATE OF MICHIGAN - Articles

All Content


Posted by: Azya Thornton on Mar 13, 2025

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ARGUED: Ryan J. Mills, SAULT STE. MARIE TRIBE OF CHIPPEWA INDIANS, Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan, for Appellant.

Attorneys 2: ARGUED: Kelly M. Drake, OFFICE OF THE MICHIGAN ATTORNEY GENERAL, Lansing, Michigan, for Appellee State of Michigan.

Attorneys 3: ARGUED: Benjamin W. Richmond, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee United States.

Judge(s): GIBBONS, McKEAGUE, and STRANCH, Circuit Judges

Court Appealed: United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan at Marquette

JULIA SMITH GIBBONS, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff-Appellant Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians (the “Sault Tribe”) objects to the district court’s entry of the 2023 Great Lakes Fishing Decree (the “2023 Decree”). The Coalition to Protect Michigan Resources (the “Coalition”) mounted a similar challenge in a separate but related appeal. The 2023 Decree results from a three-year negotiation between seven sovereigns—the United States, the State of Michigan, the Bay Mills Indian Community, the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians, and the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians (collectively, the “Tribes”)—to resolve their differences in the allocation, management, and regulation of fishing in the Great Lakes waters. It reflects a balance that the parties struck between preserving the Tribes’ treaty- reserved rights and preserving the fishery waters as an ecological resource. As the only party that refused to stipulate to the 2023 Decree’s entry, the Sault Tribe argued that the district court (i) lacked the jurisdiction to enter the 2023 Decree without its consent and (ii) failed to evaluate the decree’s tribal fishing regulations based on the rigorous standard set out in People v. LeBlanc, 248 N.W.2d 199 (Mich. 1976). In addition, the Sault Tribe raised 137 “specific” objections to the 2023 Decree’s provisions based on a more generalized assertion that the 2023 Decree unduly restricts its tribal rights under an 1836 treaty. The district court overruled all of the Sault Tribe’s objections and entered the 2023 Decree, thereby binding the Sault Tribe to the 2023 Decree’s terms. United States v. Michigan, 2023 WL 5444315, at *70 (W.D. Mich. Aug. 24, 2023). On appeal, we affirm the district court’s entry of the 2023 Decree.