1. Michigan Supreme Court
Territorial Times to the 1950s: Decisions Affecting African Americans
PREFACE:
The Michigan Supreme Court affects the lives of every citizen in the State of Michigan. The Court has a daily impact in numerous ways, especially through the cases and decisions that have come before the present day. One of the most vital ways to view the role of the Court and its interaction with our society and community is to look at minority issues and cases that have involved civil rights. In Michigan, the focus on minority and civil rights has historically centered on African Americans and Native Americans. These two ethnic/racial groups have tested the boundaries and ingenuity of the Michigan Supreme Court throughout the years and there have been no “easy” or “right” answers. The presentation at hand is meant to be an abbreviated overview of the many facets and faces of the Court. Much like the court, the information here is meant to expand and grow as the Court grows.
Slide 1: Territorial Times to the 1950s: Decisions Affecting African Americans
The Civil Rights Movement exemplifies the sense of justice and the rule of law that is the foundation of the American way of life. The struggle of African Americans to find equality through the law has given all people, regardless of race or ethnicity, a greater understanding of the legal system.
For minorities wishing to revolutionize a society that oppressed and dismissed them, the fight began on a local stage. Each victory brought celebration and each defeat took the battle to the next level. The Supreme Court of each state struggled with the issues of the civil rights movement. Some transcended the expectations of the time and some merely reflected the mindset of the majority. In Michigan, as in many other states, the Supreme Court contemplated the issue of racial equality even before statehood. Whether the Court failed those seeking justice or aided the cause, the ramifications of their decisions still affect the people of Michigan today.
The Supreme Court of Michigan offers a voice to people who are often unheard or unnoticed. The Supreme Court has the highest authority in the state and has ruled on such issues as where a man can sit, where someone can live, who can vote, and what constitutes equality. Determining whether decisions of the past where right or wrong is beyond the scope of this analysis. Evaluating the merit of a decision without the context of the time or place, with no feeling for social pressures or norms, can result in a skewed perception. The purpose of this presentation is to demonstrate that every decision the Court makes, the actions and processes of the Michigan Supreme Court, affect every citizen in this state, regardless of race or gender.

2. Territorial Cases Territorial Cases
Title Page to the document “Transactions of the Supreme Court of the Territory of Michigan: ”

3. Judge Woodward:1807
Denison v Tucker: slaves returned to Tucker who was deemed to be lawful master of the Denison’s
In Matter of Richard Pattinson: Woodward decided not to return fugitive slaves
Two cases demonstrate conflict between what was viewed as the immorality of slavery and an obligation to and interpretation of the laws
Judge Woodward: 1807
As early as the 1800s, the territory of Michigan was grappling with the ramifications of slavery and the ideals of human dignity. In one early case, Denison v Tucker (1807), a family of slaves petitioned the Supreme Court of the Territory of Michigan for their freedom and were denied a writ of habeas corpus by Judge Woodward. In this case, a Detroit resident, Catherine Tucker, inherited four slaves from her husband, who had owned the slaves legally under the laws of Upper Canada before Britain surrendered Detroit to the United States. The Denisons argued that British law allowed for emancipation, but Judge Woodward remanded the family back to the custody of Ms. Tucker. Judge Woodward’s reasoning was that the slaves had been legally possessed under the laws of Upper Canada and that the treaty between the United States and Great Britain regarding American and French and British subjects living in Michigan “had guaranteed foreign subjects the right to maintain their property, including slaves, held at the end of British occupation in 1796.” (Mitchell 2)
In his decision Judge Woodward set a precedent that repeats throughout Michigan judicial history; even though he found slavery distasteful, and said of the institution “absolute and unqualified slavery of the human species in the United States of America is universally and justly considered (its) greatest and deepest reproach” (DCL Vol.1986, Winter), he still decided in a manner that supported the institution. Many future justices would follow in those footsteps by making decisions they found morally reprehensible and yet they believed to be legally valid.
Another complexity of Michigan’s judicial system that dates back to the time of its status as a territory is the contradictions amongst cases. One month after the Tucker decision, Judge Woodward ruled In the Matter of Richard Pattinson that the Territory was not bound to return fugitive slaves Joseph and Jane Quinn to their owner Richard Pattinson. In this case, the two slaves escaped from their home in Canada to seek refuge in the Territory. The decision emphatically stated that there was no obligation to give up fugitives from a foreign jurisdiction. According to Judge Woodward, the same Upper Canadian law that allowed for Ms. Tucker to keep her slaves did not require Pattinson’s fugitive slaves to be returned to him. A review of African-American civil rights cases repeatedly demonstrates similar contradictions.

4. Voting
Gordon v Farrar: Supreme Court found that voting was exclusive to white males, 1844
People v Dean: Justices Campbell, Cooley and Christiancy defined white as “less than ¼ African blood”
Hedgeman v Board of Registration: Court held that free blacks were not citizens
Voting
Voting is considered by many to be one of the most essential civil liberties a person can possess. The right to vote acknowledges a person as an equally contributing member of a society and gives them an opportunity to contribute within the structure of their community. In Michigan, three cases in particular demonstrate the struggle of African Americans to attain recognition of their citizenship and, by extension, their right to vote. In all three cases, the right to vote was denied to non-white citizens. Gordon v Farrar and People v Dean are two cases that involve the definition of the term ‘white’ and the legislation of the racial content of a person. Once it was decided, due to constitutional provisions, that voting was an exclusively white male privilege, the question of how to define ‘white’ became the focus of the struggle for the right to vote. In the Gordon case, the Supreme Court denied Gordon the right to vote without broaching the subject of what percentage of African blood would serve to disqualify a voter; skin tone was determinative and inspectors were empowered to decide. In their decision in the Dean case, “Justices Campbell, Christiancy, and Cooley as a majority concluded that a person was white who had less than one-fourth African blood” (1986 DCL 1127). Dean was allowed to vote, but only because it was determined that he was ‘white’ based on this definition.
After the passage of the 15th Amendment, which states that “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude,” there was denial of citizenship for ex-slaves, which constituted the majority of the black population in the United States. In Hedgeman v Board of Registration, the question revolved around the rights of citizenship for the son of ex-slaves. While the justices again lamented the horror of slavery in the history of the United States, they ultimately decided that because Hedgeman’s parents were not citizens of the United States, neither was he; consequently he could not vote. It would be a long time before African Americans could vote without restriction.
In January of 1869, the governor recommended that the word ‘white’ be stricken from the constitutional article specifying the qualifications of electors. The amendment to the Michigan constitution was passed in November, finally granting suffrage to black male Michigan citizens.

5. Education Workman v Detroit Board of Education, 1869
“Separate but Equal” Doctrine dismissed
Public school admission based on race ruled illegal
1871: William W. Ferguson first African American admitted to Detroit Public School system
Legal victory without practical application, schools continued to be segregated
Education
One of the first Civil Rights victories in Michigan occurred in 1869, through the decision in Workman v Board of Education. This case demonstrates the very progressive nature of the legislature in Michigan at that time. The case originated in 1868, when Joseph Workman attempted to enroll his son in the Duffield Union School and the son was denied admission based solely on his race. In 1842, the legislature had given the Detroit Board of Education full power and authority regarding the establishment of schools and educational policies. Detroit had subsequently created two schools specifically for African-American children and had required African Americans to travel, regardless of location, to those schools, which did not have higher-level grades. In 1867, the Michigan legislature enacted the general school law prescribing racial equality in Michigan school districts. The Detroit Board of Education fought this law on the premise that segregation spared African Americans from having to be confronted by “strong prejudice against the colored people among a large majority of the white population” and that the Detroit school charter had been re-enacted after the passage of the law. The Court’s decision held that the law superseded the Detroit charter. The Court chose not to discuss arguments of policy and did not address the plaintiff’s argument of injustice due to the inequality. This ruling did not provide for integration, but the subsequent segregation that dominated the 20th century was not founded on state law, in part thanks to the decision in Workman v Detroit Board of Education.

6. Public Accommodations
Day v Owen, 1858
Ferguson v Gies, 1890
Bolden v Grand Rapids Operating Corp, 1927
Public Accommodations
The issue of segregation within the realm of public accommodations manifests itself through several cases. Day v Owen was the first public accommodation case in Michigan and affirmed the practice of segregation. Day was followed by Ferguson v Gies, in which the Court followed the dictates of the Michigan Civil Rights Act and unanimously decided that discrimination based on color/race was illegal. Ferguson sued the owner of an eating establishment for requiring him to be served food only in the saloon area of the establishment and not in the restaurant portion. Dismissing the Day precedent, the Court held that an establishment could not discriminate on the basis of color alone. Bolden v Grand Rapids Operating Corp. gave African Americans the undisputed right to sue for damages if discriminated against.

7. Day v Owen, 1858 Denied passage on a steamer from Detroit to Toledo
Sued for damages
Court ruled that ultimately the defendant had the right to decide where a customer could ride on his steamer
Day v Owen, 1858
Day v Owen preceded the Michigan Civil Rights Act and affirmed the legitimacy of segregation in that time period. Owen possessed a steamboat that offered transportation from Detroit to Toledo. When Day attempted to purchase cabin accommodations and was denied that opportunity, he sued. In this instance, the Michigan Supreme Court held that a steamboat operator could refuse passage to a Negro. “The Court held that while a common carrier could not have refused to transport Day, it could require him to conform to the reasonable regulations of the vessel. Regulations were reasonable if ‘calculated to render the transportation most comfortable and least annoying to passengers generally.’” (Mitchell 19) In other words, the carrier could not refuse to transport a Negro because he was black, but could refuse to transport him if it would make the other passengers uncomfortable.

8. Ferguson v Gies, 1890 Came after Civil Rights legislation, Act 130
Counteracted ideology of Day v Owen
“In Michigan, there must be absolute, unconditional equality of White and Colored before the Law”-Justice Morse
Prominent African American representation
Ferguson v Gies, 1890
The first case brought to the Supreme Court after the passing of Act 130, known as the Civil Rights Act of 1885, was Ferguson v Gies in The Court, in complete unison and agreement, found for Ferguson. William W. Ferguson had entered a restaurant in Detroit and had been told that he could only be served in a specific location, what was known as the ‘saloon’ side of the restaurant. Finding this side to be less desirable and still being refused service, Ferguson decided to sue the establishment owner. He employed D. Augustus Straker and sued for damages. Initially Ferguson was defeated in court, but he forged ahead. The Michigan Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s ruling on the grounds that the judge had instructed the jurors that ‘separate but equal’ applied to Act 130 and that equal did not have to mean exactly the same. The Michigan Supreme Court countered by saying that discrimination based on color was illegal under Act 130. Referring to Day v Owen and dismissing the precedent, Justice Morse stated, “It is but a reminder of the injustice and prejudice of the time in which it was delivered.” Ferguson v Gies forced the Court to qualify that the ‘separate but equal’ doctrine inherently classified African Americans as inferior. This case came to be known as “Michigan’s Great Civil Rights Case” (73 MBJ 296).
Justice Morse

9. Bolden v Grand Rapids Operating Corp, 1927
Gave African Americans right to sue for damages if discriminated against
Michigan’s Civil Rights Statute was found to be constitutional exercise of the state’s police powers
Bolden v Grand Rapids Operating Corp., 1927
In the Bolden v Grand Rapids Operating Corp. case, Emmet N. Bolden, a dentist, was refused seating on the first floor of a movie theater because of his race. That refusal clearly violated Act 130, known as the Civil Rights Act, which “provided against discrimination in persons because of race, creed, or color, in regard to accommodations and privileges of inns, restaurants, theaters, etc.” The decision reiterated the findings of Ferguson v Gies. In addition, this case set the precedent for use of police power. The Court stated “under the police power, supervision may be exercised over the use of private property, when the health, morals, or welfare of the public demands it.” (239 Mich 318)

10. William W. Ferguson
Prominent Detroit business owner of a printing company
Became a lawyer in 1897
First African American elected to Michigan Legislature
William W. Ferguson
The people represented in the cases held as much import as the actual decisions. They provided role models for young minorities and pioneered new territory in the fight for equality. William W. Ferguson was the first African American admitted into the Detroit public school system after the Workman v Detroit Board of Education decision. He later became a lawyer and the first African-American legislator in Michigan. He was a trailblazing pioneer who helped improve the conditions of African Americans not only in Detroit but also in the entire state.

11. D. Augustus Straker
African-American lawyer from the Bahamas, represented Ferguson
One of the first minorities to argue before the Michigan Supreme Court
Included in 1900 time capsule that was recently opened
D. Augustus Straker
D. Augustus Straker defended William W. Ferguson in Ferguson v Gies. He too was a very prominent African American and one of the first minorities to argue before the Michigan Supreme Court. Detroit Mayor Dennis Archer recently opened a time capsule from 1900, to which Straker was the only contributing African American. His letter reads:
Sir-none who have lived the allotted time of human life, within the confines of our beautiful city can fail to notice the changes, and events which have marked the 19th century, and especially so as relates to the colored people living, and who have lived in Detroit. The 19th century found the colored people of Detroit a race of slaves although slavery is not known ever to have had a foothold here. The incoming 20th century finds every man, and woman, and child of the colored race enjoying complete freedom under the law. The 19th century found the colored race in Detroit ignorant, uneducated, poor, and unenlightened, save with few exceptions. As the 20th century dawns upon us with every school door in the City of Detroit, wide open, welcoming within its walls, every colored, as well as white child…The 20th century finds the colored citizen of Detroit in the enjoyment and right to go, and enter every public place established for public accommodation…. If we should augur from the past and present, we have the brightest expectation for the future. A prejudice does now exist on the fringe of the 20th century – I predict that the sunlight of a more perfect understanding of the Fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man will drive out the demon prejudice and when the 21st century arrives he will find no resting place in the beautiful city of the straits.
Workman v Detroit Board of Education, Ferguson v Gies, and Bolden v Grand Rapids Operating Corp. gave D. Augustus Straker, and other minorities, hope for the future.

12. Restrictive Covenants
Most commonly, refusing housing based on racial restrictions
Parmalee v Morris,1922: upheld racially restrictive covenants
Sipes v McGhee, 1947: Led to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that states could not enforce racially restrictive covenants
Restrictive Covenants
Housing was one of the last bastions of legally upheld segregation. Many theories attempt to account for the actions of the Court, which repeatedly decided against segregation in education and accommodations but allowed discrimination in zoning policies to continue. One theory is that “housing was perhaps considered too traditionally personal to allow interference by the legislature or judiciary” (26 WnL 24). An early example of a case involving a restrictive covenant is Parmalee v Morris in The Parmalee’s had attempted to buy land in a subdivision with specific restrictions against blacks and liquor businesses. They subsequently sued under the premise that the practice of racially restrictive covenants was contrary to the 13th and 14th Amendments. The Court “took the view that a covenant forbidding the occupation of property by colored persons is not forbidden by the Federal Constitution” (66 A.L.R 532). Racially restrictive covenants were again upheld in a very prominent case, Sipes v McGhee. Sipes v McGhee was later consolidated with Shelley v Kraemer and the United States Supreme Court ruled that racially restrictive covenants are illegal.

13. Ramifications
The Michigan Supreme Court promoted change and maintained the status quo, and positive or negative the Court has an undeniable impact on our lives.
The cases chosen represent medley of the Court’s work
Historically, the Court reflected the conservative beliefs of Midwestern Michigan society
Summary
The cases chosen for this presentation represent a varied mix of the Court’s work. Early in its judicial history, the Michigan Supreme Court made powerful decisions that helped both promote and stifle change. Typically, the Court reflected the conservative beliefs of Midwestern Michigan society. “Michigan’s approach to the problems of a multi-racial society has been basically conservative; that is, the legislature and the Supreme Court have rarely been in the forefront of social change. In a couple of surprising and striking instances, Michigan law was decades ahead of the United States as a whole with regard to racial equality.” (Mitchell 1) Whether the results were positive or negative, the Court has had an undeniable impact on our lives.

14. Cases and Controversies:
Issues involving the Indigenous People of Michigan
TRANSITION:
Where African Americans struggled early on in the history of Michigan, the struggle of Native Americans has truly developed since the 1970s. There were cases before the Michigan Supreme Court before 1970, but on a national level the action began to ferment in the seventies and the cases at the state level have paralleled that trend.
Slide 14: Controversies and Cases: The Indigenous Peoples of Michigan
There are 12 federally recognized Native-American tribes in Michigan: Bay Mills Indian Community; Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians; Hannahville Potawatomi Indian Community; Huron Potawatomi, Inc.; Keweenaw Bay Indian Community Tribal; Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians; Little River Band of Ottawa Indians; Little Traverse Bay Band of Odawa Indians; Pokagon Band of Potawatomi; Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe; Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians; and the Matchebenashshewish Band of Potawatomi. The 2000 census calculates the American Indian population of Michigan to be 58,479, making it the state with the tenth largest population of Native Americans in the United States ( and The Michigan Commission on Indian Affairs: Annual Report 1998). This number is believed to be an underestimation, with the population being cited by the governor and others at closer to 65,000. The numbers constitute less than one percent of the entire population in Michigan, but Native Americans are an ethnic minority that has had an enormous impact on social organization and legal interpretation. They are a people, however few or many, who have left an indelible mark on Michigan society and law.

15. 19th Century Treaties Seven treaties signed
“Each of the treaties had a specific purpose related to…establishing the state”
United States v Michigan found that treaties must be viewed in a manner most favorable for Native Americans
19th Century Treaties
During the 19th century, seven treaties were signed that constituted the basis for the creation of the state of Michigan. In November of 1807, the Chippewa, Potawatomi, Ottawa, et al Nation signed a treaty that ceded the Detroit area to the United States. In September of 1819, a treaty was signed by the Chippewa relinquishing mid-Michigan and nearly half of eastern northern Michigan. In 1821 the Chippewa, Ottawa, Potawatomi signed a treaty relating to lower western Michigan. The Potawatomi signed a treaty in September of 1828 concerning the western most tip of lower Michigan. The Ottawa, Chippewa signed a treaty completing the formation of the lower peninsula. Two treaties signed in 1836 by the Menomini Nation and then the Ottawa, Chippewa, followed by the final treaty in 1842 with the Chippewa of the Miss. and Lake Superior finalized the state boundaries by adding the Upper Peninsula. (The Michigan Commission on Indian Affairs: 1998 Annual Report)
"Each of the Treaties had a specific purpose related to the cession of Indian-owned land, to the United States, for the purpose of establishing the state. In 1837, the sovereign state of Michigan became a reality as a direct result of the Treaties" (Michigan Commission on Indian Affairs 1998). Signed nearly 200 years ago, these treaties were not only the foundation for the creation of the state, but they continue to be a strong factor in deciding issues such as tribal sovereignty, reparations, fishing rights, and gambling. Treaties have also come to play an enormous role in the relations between Native Americans and state and federal governments. In United States v Michigan, 1979, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a "treaty with Indians must be construed as the Indians would have understood it…(it) must be construed liberally in favor of Indians so that Indians are not wholly disadvantaged by the strength and resources of the United States" (471 F.Supp 192). In essence, when any legal case involving treaties and the rights of Native Americans is decided by a court, how Native Americans intended the treaty is a factor, but never the sole determinant.
State and federal legal proceedings of the last part of the 20th century have greatly affected not only Native Americans but all citizens of the state of Michigan. There has been great anger and tension, especially concerning fishing rights, between non-tribal citizens and Native Americans. Understanding what rights are in place and their legal foundation can foster greater acceptance and peace between all races.

16. Tribal Sovereignty “Inherent right of the tribe to govern itself”
One example would be the existence of a separate, independent tribal judicial system
Concept repeatedly upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court
Tribal Sovereignty allows tribes to retain a host of rights including fishing, hunting, gaming, and higher education tuition waivers
Tribal Sovereignty
All interactions between Native-American tribes and the United States government are based on the concept of tribal sovereignty. The Legislative Research Division defined tribal sovereignty as “the inherent right of the tribe to govern itself." It further explained that:
This right is predicated on the fact that prior to European colonization, tribes conducted their own affairs and needed no outside source to legitimate their powers or actions. Once the Europeans arrived in North America, they claimed dominion over the lands they found, thus violating the sovereignty of the tribes already living there. As a consequence, Native Americans in Michigan retain a host of special rights, including gaming, hunting and fishing, and higher education tuition waivers.
With the foundation of tribal sovereignty, a firmly entrenched legal reality upheld repeatedly by the U.S. Supreme Court, Native Americans have the grounds to address a wide variety of other issues.

17. Hunting and Fishing Rights
Controversy over rights retained by various tribes in the numerous treaties signed between 1836 and 1855
People v Chosa, 1930
People v Jondreau, 1971
Fishing and Hunting Rights
One of the greatest struggles between Native Americans and the Michigan government comes from the controversy over fishing rights. This issue is of special importance in Michigan because of the profitability of the industry to the state. There has long been friction between the state and Native-American fishers who have resisted attempts to be regulated. The following cases indicate “the severity of the clash between private rights and the state’s power to reasonably regulate the exercise of such rights for the public good and the environment” (26 WnL 795).
One of the first cases involving fishing and hunting rights was People v Chosa, in Northern Michigan waters were, and are, a renowned tourist location for fishing and white citizens were concerned by the presence and actions of Native Americans. James L. Chosa and Basil Attikons, both Chippewa, were convicted of violating state fish and game laws on Keweenaw Bay on Lake Superior. Based on the treaties of 1836, 1842, and 1855 the defendants argued that Chippewas retained the rights to fish and hunt off-reservation. Their claim was that only the President of the United States could limit Indian hunting and fishing rights. The Michigan Supreme Court ruled that although treaties established the rights of the Indians to hunt and fish on reservation land, they were subject to the game laws of the state and that game regulation was an exercise of the sovereignty of the state, not the President. (Michigan Indian Rights Controversy and 252 Mich 160). The decision utilized a very rigid interpretation of the treaties and minimized the validity of treaties for Native Americans. The state and sport fisherman were relieved to know that Michigan had dominion over the actions of Native-Americans in the Great Lakes.
In 1971, the ruling in People v Jondreau overturned the ruling given in People v Chosa. William Jondreau had been convicted for illegally catching four trout from the same Bay that Chosa and Attikons had fished. The Court held “that the state’s fish and game regulations could not be applied to the Chippewa and Ottawa Indians protected by the treaties of 1836 and 1855 whether on or off the reservation because these treaty rights took precedent over state laws by the virtue of the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution.” Significantly, treaties were interpreted by the Court to take into consideration what Native Americans had intended or desired at the time of signing, rather than by the strict wording of the document. (MIRC and 364 Mich 539). Two questions remained: did treaty rights apply to off-reservation sites and when treaties did not specifically mention fishing rights did Native Americans still retain them? This controversy demanded further legal action for resolution.

18. 1970s
DNR bans gill nets in the early 70s, limiting the most commonly practiced method of fishing utilized by Native Americans
People v LeBlanc deals with license requirements and the rights of the state to prohibit gill nets
United States v State of Michigan
Considered by some to be the “most far-reaching Indian rights decision”
The decision by Judge Noel Fox confirmed that treaty rights took precedence over the state’s ability to regulate fishing
The early 70s would intensify the controversy when the Department of Natural Resources banned gill nets, the most common method of fishing for Native Americans, in an attempt to conserve the commercial game fishing industry. Albert LeBlanc was arrested for using a gill net and fishing without a commercial license and found guilty in a local district court; the court of appeals reversed the decision. The case ultimately went to the Michigan Supreme Court, which upheld the reversal. There were several questions raised by this case: 1) the license requirement, 2) regulation of treaty rights, and 3) state prohibition of gill nets. It was found that the license requirement did violate treaty rights but the ramifications and scope of state regulation were not addressed. (MIRC and 399 Mich 31).
The legal battle culminated in United States v State of Michigan. Judge Joel Fox of the Federal court ruled in a fashion that was considered stunning. Michigan Out-of-Doors summarized the case by stating, “Litigation leading to the landmark decision dates to 1973 when the federal government filed suit on behalf of the Chippewas against Michigan, alleging that the state was interfering with the Indians’ right to fish under 19th century treaties by arresting them for violating state fishing regulations” (July 1979 p32). The decision expanded the provisions set forth in People v LeBlanc. Where the Michigan Supreme Court had been wary to tread in 1976, Judge Noel Fox boldly forged ahead in “what has been called the most far-reaching Indian rights decision” (MIRC/8). Fox concurred with Native Americans, ruling that they had never given up their fishing rights through treaties and that their rights took precedence over the state’s right to regulate fishing. This decision did little to rectify the tensions and suspicions between Native Americans and sports fisherman. It was a complicated case that involved great legal maneuvering, but ultimately the United States Supreme Court refused the case and the decision stood.

19. Gill Nets
Gill Nets
Gill nets have been used in the Great Lakes since 2500 B.C. Discussions of Native-American fishing rights inevitably lead to the topic of gillnets. They are undoubtedly the traditional tool of Native Americans, but commercial and sports fisherman, along with the DNR, see the tool as having many adverse affects on the environment and fish populations. The main argument against the use of gillnets is that they are non-selective and are believed to lead to depletion of certain fish species.

20. Consent Agreement
An attempt to find compromise between fishing use for tribal, non-tribal commercial, and sport fishers
The Consent Agreement of 1985 aimed for “accommodation of Indian rights, protection of fishery, and cessation of Indian-white hostilities”
The Agreement was renewed in 2000, and for the most part has been considered a success
Consent Agreement
The Consent Agreement of 1985 afforded the most hope for future relations between Native Americans and sports fisherman. “The agreement sought to achieve the following aims: accommodation of Indian rights, protection of the fishery, and cessation of Indian-white hostilities”(MIRC/11). To date, the Agreement has been mostly successful and was renewed in 2000, demonstrating that tribes and the State seem to have reached a tentative peace.

21. Gambling IGRA: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act
Act of Congress passed in 1988
Specific guidelines to regulate gambling nationally
Forced states to enter into good faith negotiations with tribes
Gambling
Another issue of particular concern in the state of Michigan is the question of gaming rights. In the past five years, casinos have become a commonplace sight in the state, but many residents vaguely remember the conflict and difficulty that preceded their existence. Establishing casinos on reservations within Michigan was a complicated process that involved not only the U.S. Supreme Court but also a 1988 act of Congress known as the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA). The nuances of the compact between the states and tribes were just recently questioned with the establishment of the three private casinos in Detroit. Whether you gamble or not, there is little doubt that this issue affects everyone in Michigan.
The dilemma began with an innocent enough game, Bingo. The state of Michigan decided to take certain tribes to court for failure to obtain a license for high stakes Bingo. Once again, the foundation of the suit was to explore what rights the state had to regulate tribal activities. The gambling issue was based less on specific treaties, as in the fishing suit, and more on the intrinsic concept of tribal sovereignty. While Michigan attempted to resolve the issue, the same question was being asked on a national level. It would be the federal government that would assist each state in answering the question of the extent of tribal sovereignty in two ways: first with the U.S. Supreme Court decision in California v Cabazon Band of Mission Indians and second with the Congressional Act that resulted in IGRA. The Cabazon decision allowed for Native Americans to participate in gambling without interference from the state as long as the activity was allowed by the state. In Michigan, Bingo was legal and therefore Native Americans were allowed to conduct high stake games. IGRA classifies gambling in three categories. Class III prohibits casino gambling unless it is legal in the state and the tribe enters into a compact with the state (Gaming & Casino Oversight 1). IGRA forced the state of Michigan, which allowed gambling, to enter into good faith negotiations with tribes. The combination of Cabazon and IGRA on the national level made it possible for tribe-sponsored gambling in Michigan.

22. Native American Casinos in Michigan
This map shows the location and number of casinos run by Michigan tribes currently operating in the state of Michigan.

23. Negotiations Slot Machines
Stalled negotiations in Michigan for almost four years
Primages v Liquor Control Commission confirmed that electronic games of chance are legal in Michigan
Compact negotiations concluded on August 30, 1993
Native-American casinos agreed to pay 8% tax on “Net Win”
Negotiations
In the state of Michigan, compact negations began in 1989 and took almost four years to resolve due to a disagreement in the use and legality of slot machines. Governor Blanchard, followed by Governor Engler, refused to “allow electronic games of chance in the compacts. Both Administrations believed that these games did not meet the test of being authorized by State law” (Griffin 2). It would be a case that did not involve Native Americans that would effectively allow for games of chance to be included in negotiations. Primages v Liquor Control Commission confirmed that electronic games of chance were legal in the state of Michigan. That Primages decision gave compact negations the resolution needed to conclude amicably on August 30, Though IGRA forbade states to impose taxes beyond the deferment of regulation, the tribes agreed to pay state and local government eight percent of the “net win, the amount wagered minus the payout to the players” (Gaming & Casino Oversight 2). Native Americans negotiated casinos with slot machines and conceded to share the profits as long as they had the exclusive right to operate slot machines.

24. Detroit Casinos
Governor Engler has refused off-site casinos for Native Americans
On the fourth attempt, a proposal to allow three private casinos was passed in the city of Detroit
New casinos were allowed to operate slot machines
Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians v Engler, in 1998
Revolved around the issue of net win and if Native-American casinos are still accountable to pay, which they were found to be
Detroit Casinos
Detroit casinos further added to the complex nature of state and tribal interaction. The governor refused to permit off-site casinos for tribes so a vote, for the fourth time, went before the city of Detroit to allow private casinos. The proposal was passed and three licenses were issued for casinos in the city. With three private casinos now allowed to operate, all with games of chance, the question arose as to whether tribes still had to pay the eight percent of net win to the state. Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians v Engler in 1998 stated that “Michigan Indian tribes still hold the exclusive right to operate electronic games of chance in Michigan despite enactment of the Michigan Gaming Control and Revenue Act authorizing and the granting of up to three licenses for casino gambling in Detroit” (146 F.3d 367). For the time being, there seems to be another lull in the struggle between tribes and the State.

25. Conclusion
There are many additional controversies that involve the interactions between Native Americans and non-Indian people in the state of Michigan
Cases involving tribal sovereignty, fishing rights, and gambling are intended to represent the most prevalent issues for the majority of Michiganders
Slide 25: Summary
Issues such as tribal sovereignty, fishing rights, and gambling extend beyond the realm of Native American concerns. There are many others affected by the issues discussed in this presentation. The decisions of the Michigan Supreme Court, as well as the U.S. Supreme Court, have ramifications far beyond the tribal community. There can be little doubt that understanding the basis for the status quo can help enlighten all members of our society and might aid in greater peace between Native Americans and non-Indian people. The Michigan Supreme Court has and continues to play a vital role in the lives of each and every citizen in Michigan, and Native American rights are just another lens through which to view the magnitude of that role.
CONCLUSION:
Understanding the obstacles that various segments of our community have faced in the pursuit of their individual rights helps everyone better understand and appreciate the freedoms we enjoy as a society. The Court, as shown through history, has the power and responsibility to rule on issues as important as voting, education, and the right of people to rule themselves. The history of the Michigan Supreme Court is one of learning and growing. Through these cases, both those in this presentation and those not mentioned, the Court is constantly striving to improve itself and the citizens it serves.
Bibliography: African-American
Cases
Transactions of the Supreme Court of the Territory of Michigan
Edited by William Wirt Blume Volume II University of Michigan Press 1935
Denison et al. vs. Catherine Tucker (Case 60)
In the Matter of Richard Pattinson (Case 76)
Gordon v Farrar;
People v Dean; 14 Mich 406 (1866)
Hedgeman v Board of Registration; 26 Mich 51 (1872)
Day v Owen; 5 Mich 520 (1858)
Ferguson v Gies; 82 Mich 358 (1890)
Bolden v Grand Rapids Operating Corp; 239 Mich 318 (1927)
Works Consulted/Cited
378 US 226, page 290
53 A.L.R. (Ann) 189n
171 A.L.R. (Ann) 921n
64 MBJ 518
50 McL 204
73 MBJ 296
73 MBJ 279
33 WnL 1659
26 WnL 1 (From Slavery to Shelley-Michigan’s Ambivalent Response to Civil Rights)
Detroit College of Law Review volume 1986, Issue 4
Straker letter to Mayor of Detroit:
Photos
Title Page of Transactions of the Supreme Court of the Territory of Michigan
Day v Owen; 5 Mich 520, 1858
Justice Morse; Michigan Supreme Court Historical Society
William W Ferguson; online source
D. Augustus Straker; Detroit News Online Wednesday February 7, 2001 (
Bibliography- Native Americans
Treaties; Michigan Commission on Indian Affairs:1998 Annual Report
People v Chosa; 252 Mich 154, 1930
People v Jondreau; 384 Mich 539, 1971
United States v State of Michigan; 471 F.Supp 192, 1979
People v LeBlanc; 399 Mich 31, 1976
California v Cabazon Band of Mission Indians
Primages v Liquor Control Commission
Sault Ste Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians v Engler; 146 F.3d 367, 1998
Native American Rights/Legislative Research Division (Mdoc KFM4705.N c.2)
The Michigan Commission on Indian Affairs: 1998 Annual Report (Mdoc KFM E3 A8z 1998 c.2)
A History of Indian Gaming in Michigan: Prepared by Jerry Griffin (Mdoc KFM L67 M c.3)
Michigan Indian Fishing Rights Controversy vol.19 no.3 (Mdoc KFM H85 C c.3)
Michigan Bar Journal May 1989, vol. 68 no.5 (Indian Gaming and Economic Development on the Reservation)
2000 Census Information for Michigan
26 WnL 796
Michigan Out of Doors, July 1979 “Fisherman Look to Congress After Indian Rights Ruling”
The Gillnet and State Policy: Fishing Controversy Backgrounder #2
Library of Michigan Vertical File
Gillnet Photo: Vertical File at the Library of Michigan; Indian: Fishing and Hunting Rights
Treaties Photo: Michigan Commission on Indian Affairs: 1998 Annual Report
Casinos Photo: A History of Indian Gaming in Michigan: Prepared by Jerry Griffin