Big Victory for States Over Congress in Indian Ruling
By RICHARD CARELLI
 
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 18:19:38 -0500
 

Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- States scored a huge victory over federal power Wednesday as 
the Supreme Court curtailed congressional authority to resolve disputes about 
gambling on Indian reservations.

The decision has immediate impact for about half the states, where Indian 
gambling is a $6 billion-a-year industry. But the larger significance may lie in
 what it says about the balance of powers between state and federal government.

The court, by a 5-4 vote and over strong dissents, ruled that Congress cannot 
expose states or state officials to federal lawsuits when negotiations break 
down over placing casinos and other gambling activities on reservations.

The decision ``represents a clear restructuring of the balance of power between 
states and the federal government,'' said Bruce Rogow, the law professor who 
represented Florida's Seminole Indian tribe in the case.

The nation's Indian tribes were the nominal losers, but their setback could be 
slight. Federal law still allows them to seek help from the secretary of the 
interior when state officials balk at tribal plans for gambling operations.

``The big picture is: States win, Congress loses and the tribes are still 
holding their cards,'' Rogow said.

Still, Florida Gov. Lawton Chiles called the ruling ``a significant victory for 
the people of Florida.''

``Casino gambling -- whether it be in our communities or on an Indian 
reservation -- is a bad bet for our people,'' he said. ``This ruling strengthens
 our hand in the effort to defend our communities from casino gambling.''

Chiles acknowledged that the secretary of the interior now will be the sole 
federal arbiter of disputes between states and Indian tribes over gambling. But 
a tribe also might opt for suing in a state court if frustrated with state 
officials' reaction to its gambling plans.

Wednesday's ruling was extraordinary in two ways. First, it ended for Congress 
nearly 160 years of virtual free rein in making laws affecting American Indians.
 Congress still has great power in that field, the court said, but cannot 
subject states to federal lawsuits.

Second, the decision breathed new life into the Constitution's 11th Amendment, 
which protects states from being sued in federal courts against their will.

The amendment long has been a rallying point, albeit a somewhat obscure one, for
 states-rights advocates.

Writing in dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens called the ruling ``shocking'' and
 ``profoundly misguided.''

He warned that it ``prevents Congress from providing a federal forum for a broad
 range of actions against states, from ... copyright and patent law to ... 
bankruptcy, environmental law and the regulation of our vast national economy.''

Justice David H. Souter, took the rare courtroom step of reading for seven 
minutes from his 92-page dissenting opinion.

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, who wrote the majority opinion, said Stevens
 was exaggerating. But the full impact of the decision might not be known for 
decades.

``The court today holds for the first time since the founding of the Republic 
that Congress has no authority to subject a state to the jurisdiction of a 
federal court at the behest of an individual asserting a federal right,'' Souter
 wrote.

Rehnquist said the 11th Amendment restricts judicial power and that the 
constitutional powers given to Congress ``cannot be used to circumvent the 
constitutional limitations placed upon federal jurisdiction.''

Another clear indication of what direction the Republican-dominated court is 
moving on balance-of-power issues: The justices reversed their own 1989 ruling 
that had allowed federal lawsuits against the states in another context.

The court in 1987 ruled that states cannot ban gambling on Indian reservations 
within their borders if the same gambling is allowed elsewhere in those states.

Congress responded the next year by enacting the law that requires tribes to 
negotiate with the respective states before starting some types of 
on-reservation gambling.

The law requires states to negotiate in good faith, and allowed a tribe to sue a
 state in federal court if the state failed to do so.

The Seminole tribe sued Florida after Chiles refused to agree to the tribe's 
concept of what gambling to include -- casinos -- on one of its five Florida 
reservations.

Rehnquist was joined by Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, Anthony M.
 Kennedy and Clarence Thomas.

Stevens, Souter, and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer 
dissented.

In other decisions, the court:

--Said political parties in states covered by the Voting Rights Act must get 
federal approval before deciding to charge a fee at nominating conventions. The 
ruling let three Virginia residents pursue their claim that such a fee charged 
at the 1994 state Republican convention amounted to an illegal poll tax.

--Set aside one of two life sentences given a convicted Illinois cocaine 
trafficker, ruling that he wrongly was punished twice for the same crime.

AP-WS-03-27-96 1556EST