Seminole speaks to sovereign immunity and Ex parte Young

St. John's Law Review, Fall 1997 by Baker, Wayne L

CONCLUSION

Surprisingly, the Court did not discuss the discretionary analysis that was critical to the Eleventh Circuit's decision and extensively relied upon in respondent's briefs to the Supreme Court.l60 Souter brings to light the all important fact that the doctrine of Ex parte Young provides the court jurisdiction and does not alter or foreclose IGRA's statutory remedies. The majority's Young analysis appears result driven. Allowing the Tribe to proceed against the Governor of Florida would have taken the bite out of the Court's Eleventh Amendment interpretation. Yet unlike the Court's Eleventh Amendment analysis, the opinion does little to change the applicability of Ex parte Young, and Congress can easily empower future legislation by creating a private right of action against state officials, notwithstanding a limited remedial scheme. Congress may be hindered in enforcing legislation directly against the states, however it is expected that individual rights will be preserved as the fiction of Ex parte Young will remain the blueprint to enjoin state officers acting in violation of the law.

1 Kawananakoa v. Polyblank, 205 U.S. 349, 353 (1907) (affirming decree of foreclosure and sale, sovereign cannot be sued).

2 See U.S. CONST. amend. X. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Id.

3 See U.S. CONST. amend. XI. "The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State." Id.

4 209 U.S. 123 (1908) (holding that suits against individuals or state officers to prevent enforcement of unconstitutional state statute do not violate federal constitution); see infra notes 93-130 and accompanying text.

5 116 S. Ct. 1114 (1996) (refusing to apply Ex parte Young and holding that Congress lacked authority to abrogate state's sovereign immunity under Indian Commerce Clause).

6 See, e.g., Another Judicial Victory for Authority of the States, L.A. TIMES, Mar. 29, 1996, at B8 (noting controversy surrounding Seminole decision); Joan Biskupic, High Court Bolsters State's Rights, WASH. POST, Mar. 28, 1996, at Al (noting that Supreme Court has attempted in recent years to correct encroachment of Congress on states' rights); Commentator Claims Court's Decision in Seminole Case Is Part of States' Rights Campaign Aimed at Liberalism, WEST'S LEGAL NEWS, Apr. 9, 1996, at 2978, available in 1996 WL 259681; Marcia Coyle, Court Decides Gambling Case in States' Favor, NATL L.J., Apr. 8, 1996, at A12 (" `The court is incredibly concerned about federalism and about defining as clearly and properly as possible the relationship between the federal and state governments.'") (quoting constitutional scholar Michael J. Gerhardt, of the Marshall-Wythe School of Law, College of William and Mary); Frank J. Murray, High Court Revives States' Rights Against Lawsuits, WASH. TIMES, Mar. 28, 1996, at Al (discussing "landmark victory for states' rights"); David G. Savage, High Court Curbs Federal Lawsuits Against the States, L.A. TIMES, Mar. 28, 1996, at 1 (explaining that Supreme Court's endorsement of states' rights and state sovereign immunity will have far-reaching effects on federalism); Herman Schwartz, Supreme Court Opens New Round in Federal-State Fight, L.A. TIMES, Apr. 7, 1996, at M2, (explaining that Seminole is part of continuing "campaign to expand states' rights" at expense of liberalism and welfare state).