## Facts

- Congress enacted the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 (IGRA), which permits Class III gaming on tribal lands only under a state–tribal compact.
- IGRA imposes a statutory duty on states to negotiate gaming compacts in good faith when requested by an Indian tribe.
- IGRA authorizes a tribe to sue a state in federal district court if the state fails to negotiate in good faith.
- The Seminole Tribe of Florida sued Florida and the Governor of Florida in federal court, alleging the State failed to negotiate in good faith.
- Florida asserted Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity from suit.

## Issues

1. Whether Congress may, under the Indian Commerce Clause (an Article I power), authorize suits in federal court by Indian tribes against unconsenting states, thereby abrogating state sovereign immunity.
2. Whether the tribe may obtain prospective relief against the Governor under Ex parte Young to enforce IGRA’s duty to negotiate, notwithstanding state sovereign immunity.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals and held that Florida was immune from the tribe’s IGRA suit in federal court.
- Congress clearly expressed an intent in IGRA to subject states to suit, but lacked constitutional power under Article I (including the Indian Commerce Clause) to abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity.
- The Court overruled Pennsylvania v. Union Gas Co., rejecting the view that the Commerce Clause can support abrogation of state sovereign immunity.
- Ex parte Young did not permit suit against the Governor because IGRA provides a detailed remedial scheme for enforcing the statutory duty, and a Young action would bypass the limits Congress built into that scheme.

## Legal Principles

- Congress may abrogate state sovereign immunity only when it (1) unequivocally states its intent to do so and (2) acts pursuant to a valid constitutional power to authorize private suits against states.
- Article I powers, including the Indian Commerce Clause and the Interstate Commerce Clause, do not supply authority for Congress to subject unconsenting states to private suits in federal court.
- Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment is the recognized source of congressional power to authorize private suits against states by abrogating sovereign immunity.
- Ex parte Young relief is unavailable when Congress has enacted a specific remedial framework for enforcing a statutorily created right against a state, and a Young action would circumvent that framework.

## Conclusion

The Court held that IGRA’s authorization of federal suits against unconsenting states is unconstitutional because Congress cannot abrogate state sovereign immunity using Article I powers, and it further barred an Ex parte Young action against the Governor due to IGRA’s detailed enforcement scheme.


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