5 Court Cases :: essays research papers

I. Name and CitationSTATE OF FLORIDA, versus SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDAII. break FactsIn this complaint, the the Tribe was operating "electronic or electromechanical facsimiles of games of destiny" and that such operations constituted class iii gaming as defined by IGRA. These games were operated despite the absence of a compact between the Tribe and the State regarding the regulation of class III gaming. The State as well as alleged that the Tribe planned to construct a new facility on its lands in order to conduct additional class III gaming. III. The IssueDoes the operation of such games without a Tribal-State compact violate two national and state law?IV. Holding and votingNo (Opinion by Justice Stevens)V. Reasoning Congress repeald tribal immunity from state vitrines that look to declaratory or injunctive relief for alleged tribal violations of IGRA (2) the Tribe, by electing to accept in gaming to a lower place IGRA, waived its immunity from a suit to call for compliance with the statutory conditions precedent to class III gaming and (3) tribal immunity does not necessarily extend to actions seeking likely fair relief. Congress may abrogate a sovereigns immunity only by using statutory language that grooms its intention unmistakably clear, and that ambiguities in federal official laws implicating Indian rights must be resolved in the Indians favor. The Supreme beg has made it plain that waivers of tribal sovereign immunity cannot be implied on the basis of a tribes actions, but must be unequivocally expressed. Accordingly, we disown the States argument that the Tribes immunity does not necessarily extend to this action for prospective equitable relief. The district philanders holding that sovereign immunity bars the States suit against the Tribe is affirmed.I. Name and CitationALDEN et al. v. MAINEII. Key FactsCongress lacks power under Article I to abrogate the States sovereign immunity in federal court, the Federal District C ourt dismissed a Fair grasp Standards Act of 1938 suit filed by petitioners against their employer, respondent Maine. Subsequently, petitioners filed the same action in state court. Although the FLSA purports to authorize private actions against States in their own courts, the trial court dismissed the suit on the ground of sovereign immunity.III. The IssueDoes the federal government have authority under Article I to abrogate a States immunity in its own court?IV. Holding and VoteYes. (vote 5-4) (Opinion by Justice Kennedy)V. ReasoningThe Constitutions structure and history and this Courts authoritative interpretations make clear that the States immunity from suit is a fundamental aspect of the sovereignty they enjoyed before the Constitutions ratification and retain today except as change by the plan of the Convention or certain constitutional Amendments.