Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida

What happened

The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, passed under the Indian Commerce Clause, allows a tribe to run certain gaming only under a valid compact between the tribe and the state. States must negotiate in good faith toward a compact, and a tribe may sue a state in federal court to make it do so.

The Seminole Tribe of Florida brought that kind of suit against Florida and its Governor. They moved to dismiss, saying the suit violated Florida's sovereign immunity from suit in federal court. The district court denied the motion. The Eleventh Circuit reversed, finding that the Indian Commerce Clause did not give Congress the power to abrogate, or override, the states' Eleventh Amendment immunity, and that the Ex parte Young doctrine did not allow a tribe to force good-faith negotiations by suing the Governor.

On March 27, 1996, the Supreme Court affirmed, 5-4. Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote that Congress clearly intended to abrogate the state's immunity in the Act, but the Eleventh Amendment "prevents Congress from authorizing suits by Indian tribes against States to enforce legislation enacted pursuant to the Indian Commerce Clause."

The Court also overruled Pennsylvania v. Union Gas, an earlier decision in which a plurality had found power to abrogate under the Interstate Commerce Clause. Justices Stevens and Souter filed dissents, and Souter's was joined by Justices Ginsburg and Breyer.

Summarized with AI assistance from 3 sources and checked against their words; not yet reviewed by historians or by the nations. Report an error