David Giampetroni

undefinedDavid Giampetroni“Brilliant.”

“David has a deep knowledge of Native law and has a real mastery of the details in each case. He really digs in at an extraordinary level.”

– Chambers USA

David Giampetroni became a member of Kanji & Katzen in January 2014.  He joined the firm as an associate in 2006 and became Of-Counsel to the firm in 2012.  David works in the Ann Arbor office and may be contacted at dgiampetroni@kanjikatzen.com.**

Education:  David earned his B.A. degree from Indiana University in Bloomington in 1988 and and M.S. degree in Land Resources from the University of Wisconsin in Madison in 1993, with a focus on environmental planning and land and water use policy.  While pursuing his Master’s degree at Wisconsin, David was also awarded an Alumni Research Foundation Fellowship.  David received his J.D. from Indiana University in Bloomington, magna cum laude, Order of the Coif, in 2004, where he was Managing Editor of the Indiana Law Journal.

Prior Experience:  Before joining Kanji & Katzen, David served as a judicial clerk to the Honorable David F. Hamilton, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Indiana (now serving on the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit) from 2005 through 2006.

Experience & Areas of Concentration: David maintains a full-time litigation practice on behalf of tribal governments in federal, state, and tribal courts.  His practice centers on defending tribal sovereignty and jurisdiction from challenges by states and other entities or individuals; the vindication of tribal treaty rights, including fishing, land and reservation rights, with emphasis on translating complex historical records into compelling legal narratives; the defense of tribal rights in disputes with states over class III gaming compacts under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act; and the protection of tribal natural resources, including disputes with operators of energy infrastructure such as pipelines and around tribal lands.

Representative Matters:

Tribal Sovereignty & Jurisdiction

  • Hooper v. City of Tulsa, 71 F.4th 1270 (10th Cir. 2023) (rejecting City of Tulsa’s argument that it possesses criminal jurisdiction to prosecute Indians for conduct within the Muscogee (Creek) Reservation).
  • Spurr v. Pope, 936 F.3d 478 (6th Cir. 2019), cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 850 (first federal appeals court to uphold tribal court jurisdiction to issue civil protection orders against non-Indians under the 2013 Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act).
  • Kelsey v. Pope, 809 F.3d 849 (6th Cir. 2016), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 183 (first federal court to recognize that tribal sovereignty includes criminal jurisdiction over tribal members for conduct beyond Indian country boundaries).

Land Claims & Reservation Boundaries

  • McGirt v. Oklahoma, 591 U.S. 894 (2020) (holding that the Muscogee (Creek) Reservation was never disestablished by Congress and remains Indian country today under tribal and federal jurisdiction).
  • Murphy v. Royal, 866 F.3d 1164 (10th Cir. 2017) (affirming legal validity of Creek Nation’s 1866 reservation boundaries), aff’d Carpenter v. Murphy, S. Ct. No. 17-1107.
  • Representation of Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians regarding loss of reservation lands guaranteed under 1855 Treaty of Detroit.

Treaty Rights

  • United States v. Michigan, No. 2:73-CV-26, 2023 WL 5444315, at *1 (W.D. Mich. Aug. 24, 2023)  (Adopting tribal-state-federal decree allocating commercial and subsistence fishing opportunities in Great Lakes in compliance with 1836 Treaty of Washington guaranteeing fishing rights to Michigan tribes).
  • Bad River Band of Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians of Bad River Rsrv. v. Enbridge Energy Co., Inc., No. 19-CV-602-WMC, 2023 WL 4043961 (W.D. Wis. June 16, 2023) (granting injunction requiring removal of crude oil pipeline from tribal lands and ordering profits-based restitution for 10 years of trespass).
  • Representation of Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians and frequent consultation with other tribes relating to the “Line 5” pipeline in Michigan and its implications for tribal treaty fishing rights.

Gaming

  • Citizens Against Casino Gambling in Erie County v. Chaudhuri, 802 F.3d 267 (2nd Cir. 2015), denied 136 S. Ct. 2387 (upholding legality of Seneca Nation casino against lawsuits by anti-gaming groups challenging gaming-eligible status of Nation lands).
  • Regular representation of tribes in disputes with states under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, including class III game classifications, state violations of gaming exclusivity rights and revenue-sharing agreements, and establishing the gaming eligibility of tribal lands.

Tribal Governance, Laws, & Courts

  • LTBB Tribal Court v. Beck, 17-105818 (Mich. Cir. Ct. 2018) (first Michigan court to enforce tribal court decision under state full faith and credit statute).
  • Frequent consultation with tribes on membership ordinances and disputes, tribal criminal and civil code drafting and revisions, analysis and revisions of tribal court rules, and federal laws relating to tribal court jurisdiction over non-Indians.

Personal Interests:

David has two adult sons and lives on a farm in Ann Arbor, Michigan.  He enjoys fly fishing, furniture making, and home construction and remodeling.  His non-legal reading interests include politics, and American literature and history.

Bar Memberships:

  • United States Supreme Court
  • United States Courts of Appeals for the 2nd, 6th, 7th,  9th, 10th , and D.C. Circuits
  • United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan
  • United States District Court for the Western District of New York
  • United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma
  • United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin
  • Little River Band of Ottawa Indians
  • Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan
  • Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians
  • Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians
  • Nottawaseppi Huron Band of the Potawatomi
  • State of Michigan

Publications: 

  • Reflections on McGirt v. Oklahoma: A Case Team Perspective, 56 Tulsa L. Rev. 387 (2021) (with Riyaz Kanji and Philip Tinker).
**When sending an e-mail before an attorney-client relationship has been established, please do not include any confidential, secret or otherwise sensitive information. Unsolicited e-mails do not create an attorney-client relationship, and confidential or secret information included in such e-mails cannot be protected from disclosure.

Return to Attorney Listing