Opinion ID: 848685
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: legal rights, duties and relations

Text: The first factor, whether the compacts had the purpose and effect of altering legal rights, duties, and relations of persons outside the legislative branch, i.e., whether they have a general effect upon the citizens of Michigan, addresses essentially the same question as does the definition of legislation in Black's Law Dictionary. That is, Black's primarily defines legislation as the making of positive law, and when an action has the purpose and effect of altering legal rights, duties, and relations of persons outside the legislative branch, that action is typically an exercise in positive lawmaking. What is important to understand is that, in the absence of the challenged tribal-state compacts, gambling on the subject Indian land was unlawful. Gambling in the absence of a compact was unlawful pursuant to 18 USC 1166, which, as noted above, provides that, in the absence of a tribal-state compact, state laws regulating or prohibiting gambling  shall apply in Indian country in the same manner and to the same extent as such laws apply elsewhere in the State,  albeit, at least for criminal laws, through federal enforcement. 18 USC 1166(a). Casino gambling in Michigan is generally unlawful. MCL 750.301. The only casino gambling that is authorized in Michigan is that gambling conducted in accordance with the Michigan Gaming Control and Revenue Act (MGCRA), MCL 432.201 et seq. However, by its express terms, the MGCRA does not apply to gambling on Native American land. MCL 432.203(2)(d), (5). Thus, casino gambling on Indian land cannot be authorized and conducted pursuant to the MGCRA, which leads to the inescapable conclusion that casino gambling on Indian lands located in Michigan is, pursuant to § 1166, subject to Michigan's general prohibition against such gambling. [40] Accordingly, under § 1166, in the absence of a tribal-state compact, casino gambling on Indian land within Michigan's borders is unlawful, and that general unlawfulness is to be enforced by the federal government. [41] Moreover, gambling on the subject Indian lands absent the challenged compacts was unlawful pursuant to 25 USC 2710(d)(1)(C). This is because, as noted, § 2710(d) provides that [c]lass III gaming activities shall be lawful on Indian lands only if such activities are ... conducted in conformance with a Tribal-State compact entered into by the Indian tribe and the State.... Therefore, before these challenged compacts existed, gambling on the subject Indian lands was unlawful. Thus, it becomes clear that, before the challenged compacts existed, the tribes would have been engaging in an unlawful activity had they endeavored to operate their respective casinos. It necessarily follows that the compacts had the intended purpose, and the effect, of altering legal rights and relations of Michigan citizens generally. The compacts purport to allow Indian tribes to lawfully engage in activities that would otherwise be unlawful. Moreover, the compacts impose specific duties upon both the members of the tribes and upon non-Indian peoples and entities. By way of example, the compacts impose a duty on the tribes to administer and enforce on the casinos the regulatory requirements embodied in the compacts. Further, the compacts impose a duty on local units of government to create a local revenue sharing board to receive and distribute a percentage of casino profits that the tribes are required under the compacts to disburse. Alternately, if the local units of government do not create a local revenue sharing board, it may be said that the compacts impose a duty on local units of government to expend their own government funds to cover the inevitable costs for public services, police, etc., that they will incur as a result of having a casino in their area. Under either scenario, the compacts impose duties on local units of government. [42] Accordingly, it is clear that the compacts had the intended purpose and the effect of altering the legal duties generally of Michigan citizens. Further, the tribal-state compacts alter legal relationships because the compacts remove from the federal government the jurisdiction to enforce the applicable state gambling laws and regulations that apply, pursuant to § 1166, on Indian land in the absence of a tribal-state compact and place that jurisdiction in the hands of the tribes themselves. This change in jurisdiction affects Michigan citizens generally because citizens engaging in gambling in tribal casinos were formerly subject to federal jurisdiction, but are now subject to tribal jurisdiction. Additionally, the compacts alter the legal relationships of Michigan citizens generally because they may allow anyone over the age of eighteen to gamble in tribal casinos, whereas the legal gambling age that applies to Michigan casinos subject to the MCGRA is twenty-one. Thus, the first factor of the Chadha/Blank framework leads to the conclusion that the compacts constitute legislation. That is, the compacts had the [intended] purpose and effect of altering ... legal rights, duties and relations of persons... outside the legislative branch. Blank, supra at 114, 611 N.W.2d 530.