A legal battle over tribal gaming rights is heating up in Michigan. The Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa is taking on the National Indian Gaming Commission in federal court over its year-old Crystal Shores Casino in Benzie County. At stake: a regulatory interpretation that could fundamentally change how restored tribes approach gaming expansion.

The One-Bite Rule at the Heart of the Dispute

The NIGC, a federal agency under the Department of the Interior, has moved to shut down Crystal Shores based on what’s known as the “one-bite rule.” It’s a regulatory restriction that generally prevents restored tribes from opening gaming facilities on certain lands if they already operate casinos elsewhere.

Here’s where it gets thorny: the rule isn’t actually written into the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) itself. The Grand Traverse Band’s legal team argues the NIGC has overstepped its statutory authority, essentially creating law rather than interpreting it.

The Restored Lands Exception and Its Constraints

Under IGRA, gaming on trust lands acquired after 1988 is generally off the table. But the Act includes a “restored lands” exception for tribes whose federal recognition has been reinstated. The rule requires restored tribes to demonstrate that property was part of their initial trust-land acquisition following restoration, or that it was acquired within 25 years of restoration without the tribe already operating gaming elsewhere.

The Grand Traverse Band says it meets these conditions. The tribe lost federal recognition and substantial land holdings during the 19th century but regained recognition in 1980. After that, the federal government placed multiple land parcels back into trust.

A Question of Legal Authority

The tribe’s lawyers are attacking the one-bite rule on solid constitutional grounds. They contend it conflicts with IGRA’s text and purpose, violates the Indian canon of construction (a legal principle requiring ambiguous Indian law to be interpreted in tribes’ favour), and simply lacks support in the statute’s actual language.

The tribe previously opened Turtle Creek Casino in 1996, and both courts and federal regulators determined at the time it qualified under the restored lands exception. That precedent becomes central to their defence now.

What’s at Stake

The Grand Traverse Band is seeking a court declaration that the one-bite rule is unlawful. They want the NIGC’s Notice of Violation overturned and are asking for an injunction preventing further enforcement action against Crystal Shores. If they win, the ruling could open pathways for other restored tribes facing similar restrictions.

What the team thinks

Sheena McAllister says:

While Baz rightly flags the significance of this tribal gaming dispute, the real story here extends beyond the “one-bite rule” interpretation itself, as how the NIGC applies existing regulatory frameworks to newly restored tribes will reverberate across the entire sector. The outcome could either streamline gaming expansion pathways for indigenous communities or create compliance bottlenecks that inadvertently slow economic development on tribal lands, making this case essential reading for anyone tracking evolving gaming regulation. What’s missing from the article is whether the NIGC’s enforcement stance reflects genuine compliance concerns or regulatory overcaution, a distinction that matters when tribal gaming generates crucial revenue streams and employment.