American Indian Court Case. Facts of the Case. Law Essay

Name
Professor
Course
Date
517 U.S. 44 (1996)
Seminole Tribe of Florida V. Florida et al.
United States Supreme Court.
Argued October 11, 1995.
Decided March 27, 1996
1991 September Seminole Tribe of Florida (petitioner) sued the States of Florida and the then Governor (Lawton Chiles) the respondents. The tribe appealed jurisdiction under 28 U.S. C1331, 1362 and 25 U. S. C. 2710 (D) (7) (A). The petitioner claimed that the respondent denied entering into any considerable negotiation for startup of gaming activities in the tribal-state setting and hence they violated the good faith requirement negotiation that is contained in S 2710 (d) (3). The petitioner's complaint made a motion to dismiss the complaint urging the suit violated the States sovereign immunity from the federal court suits. The District Court, however, denied the motion by the respondent forcing the respondent to take an interlocutory appeal of the ruling. Based on the Eleventh Circuit the court of appeal reversed the decision made earlier by the District Court on the claim that the Eleventh Amendment did band the suit from the petitioner to the respondent. On agreement, the court held that Congress indeed abrogated the States sovereignty immunity and there was a passing of the Act, which was under Congress based on the Indian commerce clause. However, the court was in disagreement on the Indian commerce clause that it grants the Congress power to abrogate the Eleventh Amendment immunity based on the suit. The conclusion was that there was no jurisdiction on the side of the petitioner against Florida. Further, the court held that the Indian tribe is not permitted to force good faith negotiations through using the state's governor (by Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908). Therefore, finding no subject matter of jurisdiction under the Eleventh Circuit remanded the district court with directions of dismissing the suit by the petitioner.
Facts of the Case
The Indian Tribe filed the suit against the State Florida for not abiding by the law of good faith negotiations that were required by the IGRA (Indian Gaming Regulatory Act). Under the Act, the Tribe is allowed to engage in activities such as casino gambling, which are all in Florida's good faith regulations. Another fact is that Florida moved a motion claiming that the suit was violating the states sovereign immunity. The district court stopped the motion on the dismissal of the lawsuit. Court of appeal, however, reversed the motion based on the Eleventh Amendment that protected the state from federal suits. There was the grant of certiorari by the supreme court of the U.S. in making the court decision court enquired whether (A) if there is unequivocally expression by Congress to abrogate immunity. B) if Congress was acting under a valid exercise of power. There was an affirmation that in did Congress intended to abrogate sovereign immunity was distant to that of a clear legislative statement. Supreme Court through Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer found that Congress is allowed to abrogate states sovereign immunity if it intends to enforce a fourteenth Amendment Clause. Another fact to consider is that the supreme court also overrules the previous ru...