The case of Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community in 2013 revolved around the issue of tribal sovereign immunity. The state of Michigan sued the Bay Mills Indian Community for operating a casino outside its reservation, arguing that it violated both federal law and a compact between the tribe and state under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA). However, Bay Mills claimed they were protected by tribal sovereign immunity. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Bay Mills with a 5-4 decision, affirming that tribes possess inherent sovereignty as domestic dependent nations except where Congress has abrogated or limited such sovereignty. In this case, IGRA did not authorize suits against tribes for gaming activity outside their reservations; therefore, Michigan could not sue to halt such activity unless Congress decided otherwise.

In the dissenting opinion for Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community, Justice Thomas argued that the majority's interpretation of tribal sovereign immunity was overly broad and inconsistent with historical understanding. He contended that this expansive view of tribal sovereignty could lead to unjust outcomes where states are unable to protect their citizens from harm caused by tribes or individuals acting on behalf of tribes. Furthermore, he criticized the majority's reliance on precedent in upholding such a wide-ranging conception of tribal immunity, suggesting instead that these precedents were wrongly decided and should be overruled. In his view, only Congress has the power to limit state authority over matters involving Native American tribes within their borders.