ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Thursday, March 28, 1996 TAG: 9603280064
SECTION: NATIONAL/INTERNATIONAL PAGE: A-8 EDITION: METRO
DATELINE: WASHINGTON
SOURCE: Knight-Ridder/Tribune
Strengthening states' rights at the expense of Congress, the Supreme Court on Wednesday dramatically curbed the ability of people to sue states for violating many federal laws.
The potential impact of the court's extraordinary 5-4 ruling provoked dissenters to denounce the decision as ``shocking,'' ``amazing'' and ``simply irresponsible.''
The court used a dispute over Indian gambling to breathe life into the Constitution's 11th Amendment, which shields states from being sued in federal courts against their will.
Congress violated the amendment by giving Native American tribes a federal right to sue states that refused to negotiate agreements on gambling on Indian lands, the court said.
The ruling is expected to slow, but not stop, the expansion of gambling casinos on Indian reservations. The casinos have grown into a $6 billion-a-year industry in 23 states.
Despite state objections, tribes are still entitled to seek approval of their gambling plans directly from the U.S. Department of the Interior, lawyers said. ``States win, Congress loses and the tribes are still holding the cards,'' said Bruce Rogow, a law professor who represented Florida's Seminole tribe in the case.
But the impact of the decision reached far beyond casinos on reservations.
While civil rights enforcement against states was untouched, dissenter John Paul Stevens said the ruling would prohibit federal suits to enforce environmental, antitrust, bankruptcy, copyright, patent and other federal laws against the states.
Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, who wrote the majority opinion, called Stevens' conclusion ``exaggerated,'' saying that other methods of ensuring state compliance with federal law remained.
William Van Alstyne, a Duke University law professor who specializes in constitutional law, said Congress could get around the ruling by revising affected laws to authorize suits against state officials rather than state governments.
``In a larger sense,'' he added, ``this case certainly is significant because it indicates the court majority tends to take seriously the boundaries [of federal power].''
In fact, it was the second time in less than a year that the court's most conservative members - Rehnquist, Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy and Clarence Thomas - had curbed the power of Congress over interstate commerce.
Last April, in an identical 5-4 split, the justices ruled that Congress had exceeded its authority by barring anyone from carrying a gun near a school.
Taken together, the decisions signal a sharp retreat from the court's longtime willingness to endorse the expanding power of Congress to regulate a vast array of commercial activities.
The decision issued Wednesday by Rehnquist resolved a conflict between the U.S. Indians Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 and a little-known constitutional amendment that has been a rallying cry for states-rights advocates.
The act requires states to negotiate ``in good faith'' with the tribes over gambling on Indian lands and authorizes the tribes to sue states that refuse to do so.
The Seminole Tribe of Florida, which started the Indian gambling boom by opening a high-stakes bingo hall in 1979 on its reservation near Hollywood, Fla., sued the state and its governor, Lawton Chiles.
A federal appeals court upheld Florida's contention that the suit was barred by the 11th Amendment, a ruling narrowly affirmed Wednesday by the Supreme Court.
LENGTH: Medium: 72 linesby CNB