A case before the Supreme Court today involves fed­eral inter­ests, Native Amer­i­can inter­ests, the inter­ests of pri­vate cit­i­zens, and the impor­tance of estab­lished law. It deals also with the ques­tion of what to do when one law con­tra­dicts another. How are these fac­tors to be weighed?

The case may seem like a typ­i­cal lawyer’s nit­pick­ing attempt to get around estab­lished law. But it has impli­ca­tions for indi­vid­ual rights, for Native Amer­i­can rights, for the rela­tion­ship between the fed­eral gov­ern­ment and Indian tribes — and for the rights of indi­vid­u­als to sue the gov­ern­ment to stop the actions of reg­u­la­tory agencies.

Today, the Court hears argu­ments ques­tion­ing the fed­eral government’s attempt to put some land in trust. The land was pur­chased by an Indian tribe in Michi­gan, for the pur­pose of build­ing a casino. The tribe had asked the gov­ern­ment to hold the land for that pur­pose. The suit was brought by a pri­vate cit­i­zen in an effort to stop the casino, who alleged that the Band’s pro­posed gam­ing facil­ity would destroy the peace and quiet of his com­mu­nity, cre­ate pol­lu­tion, and increase crime. (more…)