17
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 1:
Line 1: − In '''''Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida''''', 517 U.S. 44 (1996), the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] held that [[Congress]] lacks power under [[Full Text of the United States Constitution#Article._I.|Article 1]] of the [[U.S. Constitution]] to abrogate the States' [[sovereign immunity]] from suits commenced or prosecuted in the [[federal courts]].+ − − 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. − − A subsequent decision, ''[[Alden v. Maine]]'', extended this ruling to suits commenced or prosecuted in [[state courts]]. − − * [http://laws.findlaw.com/us/517/44.html Full text of all opinions] − [[Category:United States Supreme Court Cases]] − [[Category:federalism]]
Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida (view source)
Revision as of 21:47, May 23, 2010
, 21:47, May 23, 2010Replaced content with 'a'
a