Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida et al. (517 U.S. 44)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided March 27, 1996 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 517 U.S. 44 · 116 S. Ct. 1114
- Decided
- March 27, 1996
- Term
- October Term 1995
- Vote
- 5–4
- Majority author
- Justice Rehnquist
- Issue area
- Federalism
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Outcome
- Petitioning party lost
- Ideological direction
- Conservative
- Constitutional ruling
- Federal law held unconstitutional
Opinion excerpt
Chief Justice Rehnquist delivered the opinion of the Court. The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act provides that an Indian tribe may conduct certain gaming activities only in conformance with a valid compact between the tribe and the State in which the gaming activities are located. 102 Stat. 2475, 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(1)(C). The Act, passed by Congress under the Indian Commerce Clause, U. S. Const., Art. I, § 8, cl. 3, imposes upon the States a duty to negotiate in good faith with an Indian tribe toward the formation of a compact, § 2710(d)(3)(A), and authorizes a tribe to bring suit in federal court against a State in order to compel performance of that duty, § 2710(d)(7). We hold that notwithstanding Congress’ clear intent to abrogate the States’ sovereign immunity, the Indian Commerce Clause does not grant Congress that power, and therefore § 2710(d)(7) cannot grant jurisdiction over a State that does not consent to be sued. We further hold that the doctrine of Ex parte Young, 209 U. S. 123 (1908), may not be used to enforce § 2710(d)(3) against a state official. y — t Congress passed the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act m 1988 in order to provide a statutory basis for the operation and regulation of gaming by Indian tribes. See 25 U. S. C. §2702. The Act divides gaming on Indian lands into three classes — I, II, and III — and provides a different regulatory scheme for each class.…
Excerpt of a 63,090-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.