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
- 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.
- 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.