The Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians (SSM) has escalated its years-long legal battle to the U.S. Supreme Court, challenging the Department of the Interior’s (DOI) decision that blocked its plans for a Detroit-area casino. Earlier this week, the tribe filed its appeal, hoping for a breakthrough that could reshape its economic and social future.
A Casino That Could Reshape Tribal Welfare
At the centre of this legal clash lies a small but significant piece of land near Detroit, called the Sibley Parcel. Purchased in 2012 with interest from the Sault Tribe’s Self-Sufficiency Fund, the land was meant to be placed into federal trust — a legal step essential for developing tribal casinos.
However, the DOI rejected the request, arguing the proposed casino did not align with the Michigan Indian Land Claims Settlement Act (MILCSA). Specifically, the DOI pointed out that the land acquisition didn’t “enhance” SSM’s current Upper Peninsula territory, nor did a casino qualify as a valid use of Self-Sufficiency Fund interest.
The tribe sees things differently. In its Supreme Court petition, SSM highlights pressing needs among its more than 40,000 members, including housing shortages, cultural programs, and economic development opportunities. A casino, it argues, could provide critical revenue to fund these initiatives.
“The Tribe struggles to provide basic services for its members… elder meal programs, education programs, day care, and food assistance for low-income families,” the petition reads.
Why the DOI and Courts Keep Rejecting SSM’s Plans
The DOI’s refusal isn’t a one-off incident. It traces back to 2017 when the agency first ruled that casino construction did not align with the “educational, health, cultural, or charitable” purposes required for Self-Sufficiency Fund spending.
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the DOI’s decision earlier this year. Its ruling underscored that the tribe’s initial plans allocated only 5% of the proposed casino revenue to social welfare initiatives. That small allotment, the court determined, fell short of MILCSA’s requirements.
The judgment stated:
“Even if we assume that the casino will be built and profitable, the record supports only a small allotment of the hypothetical profits to promote ‘social welfare.’”
The DOI also maintained that acquiring land in Michigan’s Lower Peninsula did not meet the plain definition of “enhancement” to the tribe’s existing Upper Peninsula lands — a point that continues to haunt the tribe’s argument.
Opposition from Rival Tribes and Detroit Casinos
SSM’s battle isn’t just with the federal government. The tribe’s ambitions for a casino near Detroit have stirred opposition from multiple parties, including rival tribes and Detroit’s commercial casinos.
The Saginaw Chippewa Tribe, whose own lands lie close to the proposed site, has actively supported the DOI’s stance. For them, SSM’s plans represent a threat to their own gaming operations.
Commercial casino giants — MGM Grand Detroit, MotorCity Casino, and Hollywood Casino at Greektown — are equally concerned. Detroit’s gaming market generates significant revenue, and any new tribal casino could disrupt the balance. These companies previously intervened at the district court stage, siding with the DOI to protect their interests.
The Stakes for the Sault Tribe and Its Members
For SSM, this case represents more than a legal battle; it’s about the tribe’s ability to provide for its downstate members. While the majority of its reservation lands are scattered across Michigan’s Upper Peninsula, more than a third of its members — roughly 14,000 people — live in the Lower Peninsula, including the Detroit area.
Without a meaningful land base near its Lower Peninsula members, the tribe argues it cannot deliver essential services, tribal employment, or cultural support.
SSM’s petition sharply criticises the DOI’s position, claiming it effectively restricts land acquisitions to the Upper Peninsula and undermines the tribe’s efforts at economic development.
“Interior’s interpretation guarantees that the Tribe has no ability to take land into trust in areas that would allow it to achieve meaningful economic development.”
Will the Supreme Court Hear the Case?
SSM’s appeal rests on solid legal precedent. The tribe cites past Supreme Court decisions that ruled in favour of tribes, including Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Pueblo of Santa Ana and Kerr-McGee Corp. v. Navajo Tribe of Indians. In both cases, the court intervened to ensure tribal rights were upheld.
Adding a new wrinkle is the Supreme Court’s recent decision to overturn the Chevron Doctrine, which had previously granted significant deference to government agencies’ interpretations of laws. Now, courts have the power to reject agency interpretations if alternate interpretations are deemed reasonable.
For SSM, this shift is a lifeline. It no longer needs to prove the DOI’s interpretation of MILCSA is unreasonable. Instead, the tribe must convince the justices that its own interpretation is stronger.
There’s no set timeline for the Supreme Court to decide whether it will hear the case. Given the years of litigation already behind it, the process could drag on for months — or even years.
For now, the Sault Tribe and its members wait, hoping the nation’s highest court will grant their appeal and deliver the opportunity they’ve been fighting for.
