Images (63)
Showing first 60 of 63 pages.
Document
| id |
id
364424923
|
|---|---|
| contentType |
contentType
document
|
| source |
source
import
|
Source image fields (6)
Extracted text
OCR Page 1 of 63Page 3
1996 U.S. LEXIS 2165 printed in FULL format.
SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER V. FLORIDA ET AL.
No. 94-12
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
1996 U.S. LEXIS 2165; 64 U.S.L.W. 4167
October 11, 1995, Argued
March 27, 1996, Decided
NOTICE: [*1]
from authorizing suits by Indian tribes against States
to enforce legislation enacted pursuant to the Indian
The LEXIS pagination of this document is subject to
Commerce Clause. Pp. 7-27.
change pending release of the final published version.
(a) The Eleventh Amendment presupposes that each State
PRIOR HISTORY: ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO
is a sovereign entity in our federal system and that "'it is
THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
inherent in the nature of sovereignty not to be amenable
THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT.
to the suit of an individual without [a State's] consent.'"
Hans V. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1, 13, 33 L. Ed. 842, 10 S.
DISPOSITION: 11 F. 3d 1016, affirmed.
Ct. 504. However, Congress may abrogate the States'
sovereign immunity if it has "unequivocally expressed
SYLLABUS:
its intent to abrogate the immunity" and has acted "pur-
The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, passed by Congress
suant to a valid exercise of power." Green V. Mansour,
pursuant to the Indian Commerce Clause, allows an
474 U.S. 64, 68, 88 L. Ed. 2d 371, 106 S. Ct. 423.
Indian tribe to conduct certain gaming activities only
Here, through the numerous references to the "State" in
in conformance with a valid compact between the tribe
§ 2710(d)(7)(B)'s text, Congress provided an "unmis-
and the State in which the gaming activities are located.
takably clear" statement of its intent [*3] to abrogate.
25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(1)(C). Under the Act, States have
Pp. 8-11.
a duty to negotiate in good faith with a tribe toward
the formation of a compact, § 2710(d)(3)(A), and a
(b) The inquiry into whether Congress has the power
tribe may sue a State in federal court in order to com-
to abrogate unilaterally the States' immunity from suit
pel performance of that duty, § 2710(d)(7). In this §
is narrowly focused on a single question: Was the Act
2710(d)(7) suit, respondents, Florida and its Governor,
in question passed pursuant to a constitutional provi-
moved to dismiss petitioner Seminole Tribe's complaint
sion granting Congress such power? This Court has
on the ground that the suit violated Florida's sovereign
found authority to abrogate under only two constitu-
immunity from suit in federal court. [*2] The District
tional provisions: the Fourteenth Amendment, see, e.g.,
Court denied the motion, but the Court of Appeals re-
Fitzpatrick V. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445, 49 L. Ed. 2d
versed, finding that the Indian Commerce Clause did
614, 96 S. Ct. 2666, and, in a plurality opinion, the
not grant Congress the power to abrogate the States'
Interstate Commerce Clause, Pennsylvania V. Union
Eleventh Amendment immunity and that Ex parte Young,
Gas Co., 491 U.S. 1, 105 L. Ed. 2d 1, 109 S. Ct.
209 U.S. 123, 52 L. Ed. 714, 28 S. Ct. 441, does not
2273. The Union Gas plurality found that Congress'
permit an Indian tribe to force good faith negotiations
power to abrogate came from the States' session of their
by suing a State's Governor.
sovereignty when they gave Congress plenary power to
regulate commerce. Under the rationale of Union Gas,
Held:
the Indian Commerce Clause is indistinguishable from
the Interstate Commerce Clause. Pp. 11-17.
1.
The Eleventh Amendment prevents Congress