5 Court Cases :: essays research papers

I. Name and Citation STATE OF FLORIDA, versus SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA II. Key Facts In this complaint, the the Tribe was operating "electronic or electromechanical facsimiles of games of chance" and that such operations constituted class III gaming as defined by IGRA. These games were operated despite the absence of a compact between the Tribe and the State regarding the regulation of class III gaming. The State also alleged that the Tribe planned to construct a new facility on its lands in order to conduct additional class III gaming. III. The Issue Does the operation of such games without a Tribal-State compact violate both federal and state law? IV. Holding and Vote No (Opinion by Justice Stevens) V. Reasoning Congress abrogated tribal immunity from state suits that seek declaratory or injunctive relief for alleged tribal violations of IGRA; (2) the Tribe, by electing to engage in gaming under IGRA, waived its immunity from a suit to require compliance with the statutory conditions precedent to class III gaming; and (3) tribal immunity does not necessarily extend to actions seeking prospective equitable relief. Congress may abrogate a sovereign's immunity only by using statutory language that makes its intention unmistakably clear, and that ambiguities in federal laws implicating Indian rights must be resolved in the Indians' favor. The Supreme Court has made it plain that waivers of tribal sovereign immunity cannot be implied on the basis of a tribe's actions, but must be unequivocally expressed. Accordingly, we reject the State's argument that the Tribe's immunity does not necessarily extend to this action for prospective equitable relief. The district court's holding that sovereign immu nity bars the State's suit against the Tribe is affirmed. I. Name and Citation ALDEN et al. v. MAINE II. Key Facts Congress lacks power under Article I to abrogate the States' sovereign immunity in federal court, the Federal District Court dismissed a Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 suit filed by petitioners against their employer, respondent Maine. Subsequently, petitioners filed the same action in state court. Although the FLSA purports to authorize private actions against States in their own courts, the trial court dismissed the suit on the ground of sovereign immunity. III. The Issue Does the federal government have authority under Article I to abrogate a State's immunity in it's own court? IV. Holding and Vote Yes. (vote 5-4) (Opinion by Justice Kennedy) V. Reasoning The Constitution's structure and history and this Court's authoritative interpretations make clear that the States' immunity from suit is a fundamental aspect of the sovereignty they enjoyed before the Constitution's ratification and retain today except as altered by the plan of the Convention or certain constitutional Amendments.