Seminole Tribe of Florida v. State of Fla.
Decision Date | 18 June 1992 |
Docket Number | No. 91-6756-CIV.,91-6756-CIV. |
Citation | 801 F. Supp. 655 |
Parties | SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Lawton Chiles, Governor of the State of Florida, Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida |
Bruce S. Rogow, Ft. Lauderdale, Fla., for plaintiff.
Jonathan A. Glogau, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, Fla., for defendants.
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss on Eleventh Amendment Grounds, filed December 16, 1991. For the following reasons, the motion is Denied.
Plaintiff, the Seminole Tribe of Florida (the "Tribe") is a federally recognized Indian tribe whose headquarters are located in Broward County, Florida. The Tribe commenced this action pursuant to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, 25 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq. ("IGRA"), to remediate the alleged failure of the State of Florida to conduct good faith negotiations regarding certain gaming activities to be conducted on the Tribe's land, after State-Tribe compact negotiations failed to yield an agreement. According to the Tribe, "the State and its Governor have refused to enter into any negotiation for inclusion of such gaming in a tribal-state compact, and have accordingly violated IGRA's requirement of good faith negotiation." Compl. at ¶ 24. The Defendants assert that they have in fact entered into good faith negotiations with the Tribe, but maintain that those negotiations were unavailing since the gaming activities at issue are prohibited under Florida law. In addition, the Defendants have moved to dismiss the action pursuant to the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution, arguing that Congress does not have the power constitutionally to enforce the "good faith" requirement of the compact process by explicitly providing the Tribe a judicial remedy against the State.
The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act was enacted by Congress primarily "to provide a statutory basis for the operation of gaming by Indian tribes as a means of promoting tribal economic development, self-sufficiency, and strong tribal governments...." 25 U.S.C. § 2702(1). IGRA divides Indian gaming into three distinct classes. Class I gaming "means social games solely for prizes of minimal value or traditional forms of Indian gaming engaged in by individuals as a part of, or in connection with, tribal ceremonies or celebrations." Id. at § 2703(6). "Class I gaming on Indian lands is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Indian tribes" and is not subject to the provisions of IGRA. Id. at § 2710(a)(1). Class II gaming includes bingo, pull-tabs, lotto, punch boards, tip jars and other similar games, id. at § 2703(7)(A)(i), and certain non-banking card games (not including blackjack and baccarat), id. at §§ 2703(7)(A)(ii); 2703(7)(B)(i). "Class II gaming on Indian lands shall continue to be within the jurisdiction of the Indian tribes," but is subject to the provisions of IGRA, id. at § 2710(a)(2), including oversight by National Indian Gaming Commission, established within the Department of the Interior. Id. at § 2704(a).
Id. at § 2710(d)(7)(A)(i). Notwithstanding the express terms of Section 2710, Defendants argue that any such suits brought to remediate a State's alleged failure to negotiate in good faith are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.
The Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution provides:
The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.
U.S. Const. amend. XI. The scope of the Amendment has been extended beyond the literal text to also bar suits against a State brought by one of its own citizens. Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1, 21, 10 S.Ct. 504, 33 L.Ed. 842 (1890). Thus, as the United States Supreme Court has recently observed:
Despite the narrowness of its terms, since Hans v. Louisiana we have understood the Eleventh Amendment to stand not so much for what it says, but for the presupposition of our constitutional structure which it confirms: that the States entered the federal system with their sovereignty intact; and that the judicial authority in Article III is limited by this sovereignty....
Blatchford v. Native Village of Noatak, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 111 S.Ct. 2578, 2581, 115 L.Ed.2d 686 (1991) (citation omitted). Three exceptions to the Amendment exist: (1) a State may consent to suit in federal court, or waive its immunity to such suits, either expressly or impliedly; see id.; (2) Congress may, when it possesses the power, abrogate the States' immunity; see Pennsylvania v. Union Gas Co., 491 U.S. 1, 13-23, 109 S.Ct. 2273, 2280-86, 105 L.Ed.2d 1 (1989); and (3) state officials may under certain circumstances be sued, in their official capacities, to obtain prospective relief. See Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 28 S.Ct. 441, 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908). Against this framework, we proceed to evaluate Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.
A. Abrogation
The Tribe's central argument in opposition to the Motion to Dismiss is that Congress, in enacting IGRA, abrogated the State's Eleventh Amendment immunity.1 We hold that Congress did in fact abrogate the States' immunity when it enacted IGRA, and, despite case authority to the contrary,2 further hold that, pursuant to the Indian Commerce Clause, Congress plainly had the constitutional power to abrogate.3
See Atascadero State Hospital v. Scanlon, 473 U.S. 234, 242, 105 S.Ct. 3142, ___, 87 L.Ed.2d 171 (1985); see also Blatchford, ___ U.S. at ___, 111 S.Ct. at 2584; Dellmuth v. Muth, 491 U.S. 223, 226, 109 S.Ct. 2397, 2399, 105 L.Ed.2d 181 (1989). In the instant case, the relevant portion of IGRA provides:
The United States district courts shall have jurisdiction over ... any cause of action initiated by an Indian tribe arising from the failure of a State to enter into negotiations with the Indian tribe for the purpose of entering into a Tribal-State compact under paragraph (3) or to conduct such negotiations in good faith....
25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(7)(A)(i). It is beyond peradventure that, in expressly providing for federal jurisdiction over claims brought by Indian tribes against States to compel good faith negotiations under IGRA (or to remedy the lack of such negotiations), Congress made its intention to abrogate the States' immunity in this context "unmistakably clear in the language of the statute." See Atascadero, 473 U.S. at 242, 105 S.Ct. at 3147. Indeed, the State of Florida concedes as much. See Def.Mem. at 14 (). Moreover, every court to squarely consider this precise issue has concluded that the language in Section 2710 is "unmistakably clear." See Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, et al. v. State of Michigan, No. 90-611, 1992 WL 71384, at *4 (W.D.Mich. Mar. 27, 1992) ( ; Poarch Band of Creek Indians v. State of Alabama, 776 F.Supp. 550, 557 (S.D.Ala.1991) () . Accordingly, we find that IGRA, on its face, abrogates the States' Eleventh Amendment immunity. That does not end the inquiry, however.
A more difficult question is whether, notwithstanding its manifest intent to do so, Congress had the power to abrogate the States' immunity in the context at issue here. Given Congress' plenary authority over Indian relations, explicitly noted in the text of the Constitution at Article I, § 8, cl. 3, and the uniquely federal issues raised when such authority is exercised, considered in conjunction with the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in Pennsylvania v. Union Gas Co., 491 U.S. 1, 109 S.Ct. 2273, 105 L.Ed.2d 1 (1989), we conclude that Congress, when acting pursuant to the Indian Commerce...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Seminole Tribe Florida v. Florida
... ... Commerce Clause, allows an Indian tribe to conduct certain gaming activities only in conformance with a valid compact between the tribe and the State in which the gaming activities are located. 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(1)(C). Under the Act, States have a duty to negotiate in good faith with a tribe ... The District Court denied respondents' motion, 801 F.Supp. 655 (S.D.Fla.1992), and the respondents took an interlocutory appeal of that decision. See Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., ... ...
-
Kickapoo Tribe of Indians v. State of Kan.
... ... Seminole Tribe of Florida v. State of Fla., 801 F.Supp. 655, 658 (S.D.Fla.1992); Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of ... ...
-
Ponca Tribe of Oklahoma v. State of Okl., s. 92-6331
... ... States of Alabama, Arizona, California, Connecticut, ... Florida, Kansas, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, ... Nebraska, Nevada, Oklahoma, Rhode ... Island, South ... Gen., State of Conn., Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., State of Fla., Robert T. Stephan, Atty. Gen., State of Kan., Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., State of Mich., Mike ... Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 11 F.3d 1016, 1024 (11th Cir.1994); Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe v ... ...
- Seminole Tribe of Florida v. State of Fla.
-
The Frailties of Alden v. Maine: a Decision Contrary to the Constitution, Precedent, and Ancient Propositions of Law
...517 U.S. at 51. 260. 25 U.S.C. § 2710 (1994). 261. Seminole Tribe of Florida, 517 U.S. at 52. 262. Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 801 F. Supp. 655, 656 (1992). 263. Seminole Tribe of Florida, 801 F. Supp. at 656. 264. Id. at 658. 265. Id. 266. Id. at 660. 267. Seminole Tribe of Flori......
-
The Frailties of Alden v. Maine: a Decision Contrary to the Constitution, Precedent, and Ancient Propositions of Law
...517 U.S. at 51. 260. 25 U.S.C. § 2710 (1994). 261. Seminole Tribe of Florida, 517 U.S. at 52. 262. Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 801 F. Supp. 655, 656 (1992). 263. Seminole Tribe of Florida, 801 F. Supp. at 656. 264. Id. at 658. 265. Id. 266. Id. at 660. 267. Seminole Tribe of Flori......
-
Seminole Tribe's Impact on Environmental Suits Against States in Federal Court
...compact . . . or to conduct such negotiations in good faith." 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(7)(A). 30. Seminole Tribe, supra, note 1 at 1121. 31. 801 F. Supp. 655 (S.D.Fla. 32. 11 F.3d 1016 (11th Cir. 1994). 33. Seminole Tribe, supra, note 1 at 1123 n.8. 34. Id. at 1123-24. The Court cited Green v. M......