Seminole Tribe Of Florida v. Florida

517 U.S. 44 (1996)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

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. The Act imposes upon the States a duty to negotiate in good faith with an Indian tribe toward the formation of a compact and authorizes a tribe to bring suit in federal court against a State in order to compel performance of that duty. A tribe that brings an action must show that no Tribal-State compact has been entered and that the State failed to respond in good faith to the tribe's request to negotiate; at that point, the burden then shifts to the State to prove that it did negotiate in good faith. A district court may order the State and Indian tribe to conclude such a compact within a 60-day period. If no compact has been concluded 60 days after the court's order, then 'the Indian tribe and the State shall each submit to a mediator appointed by the court a proposed compact that represents their last best offer for a compact.' The mediator chooses from between the two proposed compacts the one 'which best comports with the terms of [the Act] and any other applicable Federal law and with the findings and order of the court,' and submits it to the State and the Indian tribe. If the State consents to the proposed compact within 60 days of its submission by the mediator, then the proposed compact is 'treated as a Tribal-State compact entered into under paragraph (3).' If the State does not consent within that 60-day period, the Secretary shall prescribe . . . procedures . . . under which class III gaming may be conducted on the Indian lands over which the Indian tribe has jurisdiction. The Seminole Indian Tribe sued the state of Florida and its government under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. The State of Florida maintained that the statute was invalid because it enabled private persons to sue the state without its consent in prohibition of the Eleventh Amendment. Florida moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the suit violated the State's sovereign immunity from suit in federal court. The District Court denied the motion. The Circuit Court of Appeals held in favor of the State of Florida, claiming lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the Eleventh Amendment. It also held that Ex parte Young, 209 U. S. 123 (1908), does not permit an Indian tribe to force good-faith negotiations by suing the Governor of a State. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed this decision.