Legal Opinion
Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided March 27, 1996No. 94-12PublishedCited by 3,758 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Rehnquist
The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act provides that an Indian tribe may conduct certain gaming activities only in conformance with a valid compact between the tribe and the State in which the gaming activities are located. 102 Stat. 2475, 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(1)(C). The Act, passed by Congress under the Indian Commerce Clause, U. S. Const., Art. I, § 8, cl. 3, imposes upon the States a duty to negotiate in good faith with an Indian tribe toward the formation of a compact, § 2710(d)(3)(A), and authorizes a tribe to bring suit in federal court against a State in order to compel performance of that…
2Cases cited67 opinions
- Ex Parte YoungSupreme Court of the United States · 1908
- Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. HaldermanSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Edelman v. JordanSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Marbury v. MadisonSupreme Court of the United States · 1803
- Quern v. JordanSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
62 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3,758 opinions
- Alleyne v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2013
- Lindh v. MurphySupreme Court of the United States · 1997
- Board of Trustees of Univ. of Ala. v. GarrettSupreme Court of the United States · 2001
- Louise Whitney v. State of New Mexico Charles Patrick, Employee of the State of New Mexico John/jane Doe, Unknown Employees of the State of New MexicoCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1997
- Verizon Maryland Inc. v. Public Service Commission of MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 2002
3,753 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.