•  
  •  
 

St. Thomas Law Review

First Page

791

Document Type

Article

Abstract

The United States has undertaken a policy of assisting sovereign Indian nations in fulfilling their right to self-government by enacting legislation that promotes the attainment of economic viability. As an affirmation of this policy, the 100th Congress of the United States enacted the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), the purpose of which was "to provide a statutory basis for the operation of gaming by Indian tribes as a means of promoting tribal economic development, self-sufficiency, and strong tribal governments ...." Today, gaming on tribal land is the fastest growing segment of the nation's gaming industry with annual revenues of $5.4 billion, and includes every conceivable game of chance from high-stakes bingo to blackjack. However, the future of gaming on tribal land is unclear. Since the enactment of IGRA in 1988, Indian tribes and states have engaged in substantial litigation related to the compacting provision of the IGRA. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently addressed this provision in Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, which is the subject of this note. In addition to an analysis of the Seminole case arguing that the Eleventh Circuit erred in concluding that Congress lacked the power to abrogate the states' Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity, this note also ,addresses the reasons supporting the United States Supreme Court granting the Tribe's petition for certiorari, and concludes by asserting that the Supreme Court will find Congress does have the power to abrogate the states' sovereign immunity pursuant to the Indian Commerce Clause.

Download

Share

COinS