Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida
1996 U.S. LEXIS 2165, 517 U.S. 44, 134 L. Ed. 2d 252 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Congress lacks the authority under its Article I powers, such as the Indian Commerce Clause, to abrogate a state's Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity from suit in federal court. Furthermore, the doctrine of Ex parte Young cannot be used to sue a state official for prospective relief where Congress has created a detailed and comprehensive remedial scheme for the enforcement of a statutory right.
Facts:
- Congress enacted the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), which permits Indian tribes to conduct Class III gaming pursuant to a valid compact with the state.
- IGRA imposes a duty on states to negotiate in good faith with a tribe that requests to enter into such a compact.
- The Seminole Tribe of Florida, seeking to conduct Class III gaming, requested that the State of Florida enter into negotiations for a compact.
- The Seminole Tribe alleged that Florida and its Governor, Lawton Chiles, refused to enter into any negotiation for certain gaming activities, thereby violating the good-faith negotiation requirement of IGRA.
Procedural Posture:
- The Seminole Tribe of Florida sued the State of Florida and Governor Lawton Chiles in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, alleging a failure to negotiate in good faith under IGRA.
- The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, asserting sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment.
- The District Court, a trial court, denied the motion to dismiss.
- The defendants, as appellants, filed an interlocutory appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
- The Eleventh Circuit, an intermediate appellate court, reversed the District Court's decision, holding that the Eleventh Amendment barred the suit against the state and that the Ex parte Young doctrine was inapplicable.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted the Seminole Tribe's petition for a writ of certiorari.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Eleventh Amendment prevent Congress from authorizing suits by Indian tribes against States to enforce legislation, enacted pursuant to the Indian Commerce Clause, that imposes a duty to negotiate in good faith?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Rehnquist
Yes. The Eleventh Amendment prevents Congress from authorizing such suits because the Indian Commerce Clause, and other Article I powers, do not grant Congress the power to abrogate the States' sovereign immunity. The Court's analysis follows a two-part test: first, whether Congress unequivocally expressed its intent to abrogate immunity, and second, whether it acted pursuant to a valid source of power. While Congress's intent in IGRA was unmistakably clear, the power to abrogate is not found in Article I. The Court explicitly overruled its prior decision in Pennsylvania v. Union Gas Co., which had found such power under the Interstate Commerce Clause, reasoning it was a flawed departure from established principles. The Eleventh Amendment is understood to confirm a background principle of state sovereign immunity that limits the judicial power of Article III, and Article I cannot be used to circumvent this limitation. Only the Fourteenth Amendment has been recognized as a valid basis for abrogation because it was adopted after the Eleventh Amendment and fundamentally altered the federal-state balance. The Court also held that the doctrine of Ex parte Young does not permit a suit against the governor because IGRA provides an intricate remedial scheme specifically designed for its enforcement, and allowing a separate, more powerful judicial remedy would render Congress's specific scheme superfluous.
Dissenting - Justice Stevens
No. The majority's decision is a sharp break with precedent that prevents Congress from providing a federal forum for a broad range of actions against States, including those under copyright, patent, and environmental laws. The holding is based on a judge-made doctrine of sovereign immunity that extends far beyond the actual text of the Eleventh Amendment, which on its face does not bar suits against a state by its own citizens. The Court's precedent in Hans v. Louisiana should be understood as establishing a federal common-law rule, not a constitutional barrier, which Congress has the power to displace. By constitutionalizing this common-law defense, the majority improperly elevates judicial interpretation over the plenary power of Congress and affronts a co-equal branch of government.
Dissenting - Justice Souter
No. The Court's decision is fundamentally mistaken and based on a flawed historical understanding of the Eleventh Amendment and the nature of sovereignty in the American federal system. Historically, the Eleventh Amendment was intended only to repeal the Citizen-State Diversity Clauses of Article III and does not bar federal-question suits against states. The Court's key precedent, Hans v. Louisiana, was wrongly decided due to a misreading of the Amendment's history and was likely influenced by the political pressures of post-Reconstruction state debt repudiation. Even if Hans is accepted under stare decisis, it established a common-law, not constitutional, immunity that Congress can abrogate. Finally, the case should have been resolved on the narrower ground that the doctrine of Ex parte Young permits the suit against the Governor for prospective injunctive relief, and the majority provides no adequate reason for displacing this indispensable jurisdictional rule.
Analysis:
This decision significantly curtailed congressional power to enforce federal statutes against states by holding that Article I powers are insufficient to abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity. It overruled Pennsylvania v. Union Gas, narrowing the avenues for private enforcement of federal law against unconsenting states primarily to statutes enacted under the Fourteenth Amendment's enforcement clause. The ruling also limited the Ex parte Young doctrine, suggesting that detailed congressional remedial schemes can preclude suits against state officers, thereby creating uncertainty for the enforcement of other federal statutes. Seminole Tribe established a powerful, constitutionally-grounded view of state sovereign immunity that has reshaped federalism jurisprudence and limited the remedies available for state violations of federal law.
Unlock the full brief for Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida