Here is the opinion in Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan.
An excerpt:
The Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe and its Benefit Plan brought federal and common law claims against Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan (BCBSM or Blue Cross) for failing to fulfill its fiduciary duties in administering tribal health insurance plans. When we first encountered this dispute three years ago, we reversed the district court’s dismissal of the Tribe’s claims based on Blue Cross’s alleged failure to insist on “Medicare-like rates” for care authorized by the Tribe’s Contract Health Services1 program and provided to tribal members by Medicare-participating hospitals. On remand, the district court granted summary judgment to Blue Cross, concluding that the Tribe’s payments for qualified CHS care through the Blue Cross plans were not eligible for Medicare-like rates. The district court interpreted the relevant federal regulations as limiting the requirement of Medicare-like rates to payments for care that was authorized by CHS, provided to tribal members by Medicare- participating hospitals, and directly paid for with CHS funds. Based on the plain wording of the applicable regulations, we REVERSE and REMAND the case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Michigan Indian Legal Service’s commitment to serving those in need dates back to our founding, and we are constantly seeking new ways to position our pro bono lawyers’ talents to their highest and best use: Serving others.
We allow our volunteer attorneys to do pro bono work for a simple but compelling reason: To make the legal system accessible and fair, especially to the poor and disadvantaged.
Please enjoy the following commercial we recently produced and see if it stirs up desire and a willingness to engage in pro bono work with MILS. Please forward and share the link below with other attorneys and take a chance to make a difference in somebody’s life today. Michigan Indian Legal Service’s commitment to serving those in need dates back to our founding, and we are constantly seeking new ways to position our pro bono lawyers’ talents to their highest and best use: Serving others.
We allow our volunteer attorneys to do pro bono work for a simple but compelling reason: To make the legal system accessible and fair, especially to the poor and disadvantaged.
Please enjoy the following commercial we recently produced and see if it stirs up desire and a willingness to engage in pro bono work with MILS. Please forward and share the link below with other attorneys and take a chance to make a difference in somebody’s life today.
In McGirt v. Oklahoma, the Supreme Court held that the eastern half of Oklahoma was Indian country. This bombshell decision was contrary to the settled expectations and government practices of 111 years. It also was representative of an increasing trend of federal courts recognizing Indian sovereignty over large and economically significant areas of the country, even where Indians have not asserted these claims in many years and where Indians form a small minority of the inhabitants.
Although McGirt and similar cases fundamentally turn on questions of statutory and treaty interpretation, they are often couched in consequence-based arguments about the good or bad economic effects of altering existing jurisdictional relationships. One side raises a “parade of horribles.” The other contends “the sky is not falling.” Yet, to date, there is hardly any empirical literature to ground these debates. Litigants have instead been forced to rely upon impressionistic reasoning and economic intuitions.
We evaluate these competing empirical claims by exploiting natural experiments: judicial rulings altering the status quo of Indian reservation status. Applying well- established econometric techniques, we first examine the Tenth Circuit’s Murphy v. Royal decision in 2017 and the Supreme Court’s McGirt v. Oklahoma decision in 2020, which both held that the eastern half of Oklahoma was in fact Indian country. To do so, we leverage monthly employment data at the county level, annual output data at the county level, and daily financial data for public companies incorporated in Oklahoma. Contrary to the “falling sky” hypothesis that recognition of Indian jurisdiction would negatively impact the local economy, we observe no statistically significant effect of the Tenth Circuit or Supreme Court opinions on economic output in the affected counties.
We supplement these findings by analyzing five further case studies. These include three Supreme Court decisions: Nebraska v. Parker (concerning the Village of Pender, Nebraska); City of Sherill v. Oneida Indian Nation (City of Sherill, New York); South Dakota v. Yankton Sioux Tribe (Mix County, South Dakota). We also analyze settlements between Tribes and State governments in Mt. Pleasant, Michigan, in 2010 and Tacoma, Washington, in 1989. On balance, we report no statistically significant evidence that recognition of Tribal jurisdiction reduces economic performance in the affected counties, and we provide several hypotheses to contextualize these finding. These results have important consequences for ongoing litigation, including the Supreme Court’s upcoming merits case Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta, No. 21-429 (U.S.), in which the litigants have raised competing empirical arguments about the effects of the McGirt decision.
As the 2021-22 academic year draws to a close, the passing of the torch is happening among many student organizations and leadership groups at the College of Law.
Michigan State Law Review, the law school’s flagship journal, begins the process each spring by hosting elections to determine a new executive board for the coming year. The result of the recent vote appointed rising 3L Hugh Theut, ’23, as the new Editor-in-Chief (EIC) of Law Review.
“Getting on Law Review is such a big accomplishment to me,” Theut explained, “and then to go through the elections process and make it to EIC, I think it’s very humbling.”
Theut joined Law Review with the goal of adding strong legal writing skills to his learned ability for advocacy. He studied political science at the University of Iowa, where he also minored in rhetoric and persuasion. His minor allowed Theut the opportunity to engage in public speaking and serve as an advocate, ultimately motivating him to pursue a law degree. He comes from a family of practicing attorneys, so the idea was always on the table, but Theut explained that “by the time I got to undergrad, I found a niche for (the law) and enjoyed it.”
Originally from Michigan’s Upper Peninsula and a citizen of the Mackinac Bands of Chippewa and Ottawa Indians, Theut returned to his home state after receiving his bachelor’s degree. He chose to continue his education at MSU Law, “I thought it was a great law school coming in, and now I feel as though I made the right decision,” he said. Continuing, Theut said, “The school has provided me with every opportunity to succeed, including a summer associate position with Kerr Russell I landed through the school’s on campus interview process.”
Outgoing Editor-in-Chief, Brandon Cross, ’22, has supported Theut during the leadership transition. “He’s been super helpful, bringing me up to speed,” Theut said. “His advice was to work closely with Professor David Blankfein-Tabachnick, stay on the ball, and don’t get behind. Be ready for anything.”
Professor Blankfein-Tabachnick serves as Michigan State Law Review’s faculty advisor, and he celebrated Theut’s appointment: “Becoming Editor-in-Chief of the Michigan State Law Review is among the highest honors a student at our Law College might achieve. Hugh is an extraordinarily bright and tremendously capable person. As a student, he has been an absolute star.”
“Hugh will continue the excellence that has been the journal’s marquee, building on the superb work of previous EIC’s. Most recently, Brandon Cross, whose tireless and outstanding work and commitment to the journal has been just astonishing,” he added. “We all owe Bran and his team a huge thank you and look forward to working with Hugh and his incoming team as they take on the leadership of one of Michigan State University’s many crown jewels.”
As Theut prepares to take on more responsibility in his new role with Law Review, he is excited for what the year ahead will bring.
“I look forward to working with Professor Blankfein-Tabachnick. I think he’s phenomenal. I had him for Tax last semester, and he was great,” Theut said. “I also talked to the previous Editor-in-Chief before Bran, Kylee Nemetz, and she had a lot of great things to say about the position. … I just feel incredibly lucky.”
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.