- [Announcer] In 1988, Congress passed
the Indiana Gaming Regulatory Act
to promote
and regulate the Indian tribal gambling industry.
If an Indian tribe wanted to set up gambling on tribal land,
the tribe needed to negotiate an agreement with the state.
The act required states to negotiate with the Indian tribes
in good faith.
If a state refused to negotiate fairly,
then the tribe could sue in federal court
to compel negotiation.
The act specifically gave federal courts
jurisdiction over these cases.
Florida's Seminole tribe
wanted to set up gambling operations,
but Florida refused to negotiate.
The tribe sued the state and its governor in federal court
to force them to the negotiating table.
Florida claimed
that the act violated its Eleventh Amendment rights
by authorizing the tribe to sue the state in federal court.
The District Court denied Florida's motion to dismiss,
but the Court of Appeals reversed.
The Supreme Court granted cert
to decide whether the Eleventh Amendent
protected the State of Florida
from the Seminole tribes lawsuit.
The court held
that deciding whether Congress
can take away the state's Eleventh Amendment protection
requires a two-step analysis.
First, Congress must express an unequivocal intention
to take away the state's Eleventh Amendment immunity.
Second, Congress must have removed the immunity
under a valid constitutional power.
Chief Justice Rehnquist
writing for the five-justice majority
held that Eleventh Amendment immunity
protected Florida from this lawsuit.
Although Congress satisfied the first step
by expressing a clear intention
to remove the state's immunity,
Congress had not acted
under a valid constitutional power in doing so.
Congress passed the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act
pursuant to the Indian Commerce Clause,
which granted Congress exclusive authority
over commerce with Indian tribes.
But under the American federal system,
states are still considered sovereign entities.
As part of that sovereignty,
state's generally can't be sued without their consent.
This doctrine is called Sovereign Immunity.
The Eleventh Amendment protects state's sovereign immunity
by prohibiting federal courts
from hearing cases brought against the states
by private parties.
But sometimes Congress
can take away the state's sovereign immunity.
For instance, Section five of the Fourteenth Amendment
authorizes Congress to protect civil rights
from state infringement.
That authority
includes the power to authorize private individuals
to sue states in federal court
in actions to enforce these civil rights.
Similarly, in Pennsylvania v. Union Gas,
a splintered plurality ruled
that the Interstate Commerce Clause
also granted Congress the power to take away
state sovereign immunity.
Following Union Gas, the Seminole tribe argued
that the same rule should be extended to this case,
since there was no convincing reason
to treat the Interstate Commerce Clause
and the Indiana Commerce Clause differently.
But after reconsidering the issue,
the court overturned Union Gas.
The court held that the Interstate Commerce Clause
and the Indian Commerce Clause
were both fundamentally different
from the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Fourteenth Amendment was specifically enacted
to alter the balance of federal and state power.
The Interstate Commerce Clause
and the Indian Commerce Clause
both gave Congress legislative power
over their respective subjects,
but they didn't alter the fundamental limits
of the federal judicial power under the Eleventh Amendment.
Therefore, neither the Interstate Commerce Clause
nor the Indian Commerce Clause
allowed Congress to take away state sovereign immunity
and Congress couldn't rely
on those parts of the Constitution
to authorize the tribe's lawsuit against Florida.
The majority affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals
agreeing that the tribe's suit
was barred by Florida's right to sovereign immunity
under the Eleventh Amendment.
Justice Souter
joined by Justice Ginsburg and Breyer dissented.
Souter argued that the majority based its decision
on an overly broad interpretation of the Eleventh Amendment.
Souter argued that the Eleventh Amendment
by its plain language and history
barred only diversity cases brought against the state
by a non-resident.
In Souter's view,
the Eleventh Amendment didn't bar federal question cases
brought by individuals against states,
which was the type of lawsuit here.
Justice Stevens dissented separately
emphasizing that by overruling Union Gas
the court potentially
undermined a number of federal legal claims.
This included claims arising from intellectual property,
environmental law and economic regulation.
Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida
limited Congress's power to create private causes of action
against state governments that violate federal law.
However, subsequent decisions
have diminished Seminole tribe's impact
by allowing Congress to take away state sovereign immunity
in matters concerning bankruptcy and discrimination.