PEOPLE OF MI V WALTER JOSEPH CASWELL

Michigan Supreme Court
Lansing, Michigan
Megan K. Cavanagh,
Chief Justice
Brian K. Zahra
Richard H. Bernstein
Elizabeth M. Welch
Kyra H. Bolden
Kimberly A. Thomas
Noah P. Hood,
Justices
Order
May 29, 2026
SC: 169563
COA: 368232
Mackinac CC: 23-004360-AR
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
WALTER JOSEPH CASWELL,
Defendant-Appellee.
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 24, 2025
judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is GRANTED. The parties shall
include among the issues to be briefed: (1) whether Michigan courts have jurisdiction to
determine through this case whether the Mackinac Tribe of Odawa and Ojibwa Indians (the
Mackinac Tribe) is a political successor in interest to a signatory of the 1836 Treaty of
Washington (the 1836 Treaty), see, e.g., Washington v Washington State Commercial
Passenger Fishing Vessel Ass’n, 443 US 658, 675 (1979); United States v Michigan, 471
F Supp 192 (WD Mich, 1979); (2) if Michigan courts have jurisdiction to determine
whether the Mackinac Tribe is a treaty tribe through this case, whether they should refrain
from doing so for other reasons, see, e.g., Little Traverse Bay Bands of Ottawa Indians v
Michigan, unpublished opinion of the United States District Court for the Western District
of Michigan, issued August 3, 1988 (Case No. G87-118) (requiring a tribe without treaty-
tribe status to exhaust administrative remedies before bringing an action to enforce alleged
treaty rights); (3) if Michigan courts should decide whether the Mackinac Tribe is a treaty
tribe through this case, whether the trial court applied the correct evidentiary burden, see
Greene v United States, 996 F2d 973 (CA 9, 1993), People v Caswell, 336 Mich App 59,
77 (2021); (4) whether, based on the evidence presented to the district court, the Court of
Appeals correctly affirmed the lower courts’ determination that the Mackinac Tribe is a
political successor in interest to a signatory of the 1836 Treaty, see, e.g., Caswell, 336 Mich
App at 75, 78; United States v Washington, 641 F2d 1368, 1371 (CA 9, 1981). The time
allowed for oral argument shall be 20 minutes for each side. MCR 7.314(B)(1).
We further ORDER the Mackinac Circuit Court, in accordance with Administrative

-- 1 of 2 --

I, Elizabeth Kingston-Miller, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the
foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.
May 29, 2026
p0526
2
Clerk
Order 2003-03, to determine whether defendant is indigent and, if so, to appoint Jana D.
Mathieu, if feasible, to represent defendant in this Court. If this appointment is not feasible,
the trial court shall, within the same time frame, appoint other counsel to represent
defendant in this Court. Defendant’s brief is due within 35 days after the prosecution’s
brief is served on defendant or within 35 days of an order appointing counsel for
representation in this Court or of a ruling that defendant is not entitled to appointed counsel.
Amici who appeared at the application stage are invited to file supplemental briefs
amicus curiae. Other persons or groups interested in the determination of the issues
presented in this case who are not exempt from the motion requirement under MCR
7.312(H) may move the Court for permission to file briefs amicus curiae.

-- 2 of 2 --