Peter d'Errico: Seminole Tribe embraces limits on sovereignty

The Seminole Nation has a high profile in litigation about Indian gaming. In 1991, the Seminole sued the State of Florida under the U.S. Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA). The Seminole argued Florida had violated IGRA's requirement of "good faith negotiation," by refusing to negotiate inclusion of certain activities in a tribal-state gaming compact.

Florida moved to dismiss, arguing the 11th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guaranteed state sovereign immunity from the Seminole lawsuit. The federal district court denied the state's motion and Florida appealed. The court of appeals reversed the district court, and held that the 11th Amendment barred the Seminole suit.

The Seminole then asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case. In a 1996 decision—Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida—the court agreed with Florida. The Supreme Court said that although Congress had intended IGRA to override state sovereign immunity, that part of the law was unconstitutional.

Now the Seminole are back in court, with another Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida lawsuit, again in federal district court—this time about renewing a section of the gaming compact the two parties eventually finalized in 2010.