5 Court Cases :: essays research papers

I. arouse and commendationSTATE OF FLORIDA, versus SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDAII. Key FactsIn this complaint, the the Tribe was in operation(p) "electronic or electromechanical facsimiles of games of chance" and that such(prenominal) operations established class III gaming as defined by IGRA. These games were operated patronage the absence of a compact between the Tribe and the State regarding the ordination of class III gaming. The State also alleged that the Tribe mean to construct a new facility on its lands in regularize to conduct additional class III gaming. III. The IssueDoes the operation of such games without a Tribal-State compact violate both federal and state truth?IV. Holding and VoteNo (Opinion by Justice Stevens)V. argument sex act get rid ofd tribal immunity from state faces that seek declaratory or injunctive imprint for alleged tribal violations of IGRA (2) the Tribe, by electing to engage in gaming down the stairs IGRA, waived its immunity from a suit to require compliance with the statutory conditions actor to class III gaming and (3) tribal immunity does non needs extend to actions seeking prospective equitable relief. Congress may repeal a sovereigns immunity only by using statutory delivery that makes its intention unmistakably clear, and that ambiguities in federal laws implicating Indian rights must be resolved in the Indians favor. The Supreme flirt has made it plain that waivers of tribal sovereign immunity cannot be implied on the basis of a tribes actions, exactly must be unequivocally expressed. Accordingly, we reject the States argument that the Tribes immunity does not necessarily extend to this action for prospective equitable relief. The district courts retentivity 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 D istrict Court dismissed a Fair Labor 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 insular 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 trust 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 have today except as altered by the plan of the expression or certain constitutional Amendments.