Case law · Highest court · Federal

Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida

Decided
March 27, 1996
Docket
94-12
Status
Published
Jurisdiction
Federal

Cited 3,788 timesSuperseded by statute (not yet verified)Possible negative treatment: superseded by statute, overruled in part (not yet verified) · Isabell v. Trustees of Indiana University The

What later courts said

Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.

How the opinion begins

[*47] 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.

[*48] 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. Class III gaming — the type with which we are here concerned — is defined as “all forms of gaming that are not class I gaming or class II gaming,” §2703(8), and includes such things as slot machines, casino games, banking card games, dog racing, and lotteries.[1] It is the most heavily regulated of the three classes. The Act provides that class III gaming is lawful only where it is: (1) authorized by an ordinance or resolution that (a) is adopted by the governing body of the Indian tribe, (b) satisfies certain statutorily prescribed requirements, and (c) is approved by the National Indian Gaming Commission; (2) located in a State that permits such gaming for any purpose by any person, organization, or entity; and (3) “conducted in conformance with a Tribal-State compact entered into by the [*49] Indian tribe and the State under paragraph (3) that is in effect.” § 2710(d)(1).

Statutes cited

Cite this

Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (1996)

Read the full opinion

Free account needed

Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.