| | Chief Justice [[William Rehnquist]] wrote the opinion for the 5-4 Court, with the [[liberal]] wing in dissent. Chief Justice Rehnquist explained: | | Chief Justice [[William Rehnquist]] wrote the opinion for the 5-4 Court, with the [[liberal]] wing in dissent. Chief Justice Rehnquist explained: |
| − | :The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act provides that an Indian tribe may conduct certain gaming activities only in conformance with a valid compact between the tribe and the State in which the gaming activities are located. 102 Stat. 2475, 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(1)(C). The Act, passed by Congress under the Indian Commerce Clause, U.S. Const., Art. I, § 8, cl. 3, imposes upon the States a duty to negotiate in good faith with an Indian tribe toward the formation of a compact, § 2710(d)(3)(A), and authorizes a tribe to bring suit in federal court against a State in order to compel performance of that duty, § 2710(d)(7). We hold that notwithstanding Congress' clear intent to abrogate the States' sovereign immunity, the Indian Commerce Clause does not grant Congress that power, and therefore § 2710(d)(7) cannot grant jurisdiction over a State that does not consent to be sued. We further hold that the doctrine of ''[[Ex parte Young]]'', 209 U.S. 123, 52 L. Ed. 714, 28 S. Ct. 441 (1908), may not be used to enforce § 2710(d)(3) against a state official. | + | :The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act provides that an Indian tribe may conduct certain gaming activities only in conformance with a valid compact between the tribe and the State in which the gaming activities are located. 102 Stat. 2475, 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(1)(C). The Act, passed by Congress under the Indian [[Commerce Clause]], U.S. Const., Art. I, § 8, cl. 3, imposes upon the States a duty to negotiate in good faith with an Indian tribe toward the formation of a compact, § 2710(d)(3)(A), and authorizes a tribe to bring suit in federal court against a State in order to compel performance of that duty, § 2710(d)(7). We hold that notwithstanding Congress' clear intent to abrogate the States' sovereign immunity, the Indian Commerce Clause does not grant Congress that power, and therefore § 2710(d)(7) cannot grant jurisdiction over a State that does not consent to be sued. We further hold that the doctrine of ''[[Ex parte Young]]'', 209 U.S. 123, 52 L. Ed. 714, 28 S. Ct. 441 (1908), may not be used to enforce § 2710(d)(3) against a state official. |
| | A subsequent decision, ''[[Alden v. Maine]]'', extended this ruling to suits commenced or prosecuted in [[state courts]]. | | A subsequent decision, ''[[Alden v. Maine]]'', extended this ruling to suits commenced or prosecuted in [[state courts]]. |