[5] In 2010, using accrued interest from federal appropriations,[6] the tribe purchased land near Vanderbilt, in the Lower Peninsula, and claimed authority to operate a casino there.

[2] The Sixth Circuit vacated the injunction holding that tribal immunity barred Michigan's suit against Bay Mills unless Congress provided otherwise.

And we decline to revisit our prior decisions holding that, absent such an abrogation (or a waiver), Indian tribes have immunity even when a suit arises from off-reservation commercial activity.

The opinion points out that Michigan could utilize its own statutory provisions and procedures to take action which may be in violation of state law (such as denying a license to Bay Mills for an off-reservation casino, and bringing suit against the tribe if it went ahead anyway).

Justice Sotomayor filed a concurring opinion detailing why history and courtesy advise against limiting tribal sovereign immunity.

Justice Scalia filed a dissent contending that the Court's ruling in Kiowa was wrongly decided and that "stare decisis does not recommend its retention."

Because of the increase in commercial activity undertaken by tribes, and, thus, the limitation and even extinguishing of states' "ability to protect their citizens and enforce the law against tribal businesses," Thomas argues that stare decisis is inappropriate in this case.