State of Alabama v. PCI Gaming Authority
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 15692
| 11th Cir. | 2015Background
- Alabama sued PCI Gaming Authority (PCI) and tribal officials (in official capacity) to enjoin alleged illegal "slot machine" gambling at three Poarch Band of Creek Indians casinos located on lands taken into trust for the Tribe. The Tribe itself was not sued because of sovereign immunity.
- Alabama asserted two main theories: (1) the Secretary of the Interior lacked authority under the Indian Reorganization Act (IRA)/Carcieri to take the casino lands into trust, so the lands are not “Indian lands” and state law applies; and (2) 18 U.S.C. § 1166 (IGRA criminal provision) incorporates state gambling laws into federal law and thereby creates a federal right of action for states to sue to enjoin unlawful gaming on Indian lands.
- Defendants removed to federal court; the district court dismissed: PCI based on tribal sovereign immunity, individual tribal officials based on immunity for the state-law claim but not for the IGRA claim, and dismissed Alabama’s IGRA claim for failure to state a claim (holding § 1166 gives states no private right of action).
- On appeal the Eleventh Circuit affirmed: PCI is an arm of the Tribe and immune; individual defendants are subject to suit under Ex parte Young for ongoing violations of federal law (so IGRA claim survives immunity challenge) but Alabama fails to state an IGRA claim because § 1166 provides no express or implied private right of action for states; Alabama’s collateral attack on the Secretary’s land-into-trust decisions (Carcieri theory) is barred (should have been brought under the APA and is time-barred).
- Court emphasized IGRA’s statutory scheme and legislative history, the limited remedies Congress created, and that § 1166 expressly addresses criminal enforcement by the federal government but contains no language creating a state civil enforcement remedy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether PCI shares the Tribe’s sovereign immunity | PCI is a separate commercial entity and not immune | PCI functions as an arm of the Tribe and thus shares immunity | PCI is entitled to tribal sovereign immunity (arm-of-tribe) |
| Whether individual tribal officials are immune from Alabama’s IGRA claim | Officials are immune because of tribal sovereign immunity | Ex parte Young permits suit against officials for ongoing violations of federal law | Ex parte Young applies; officials not immune as to IGRA claim |
| Whether individual tribal officials are immune from Alabama’s state-law nuisance claim | Individual officials not immune in state court; removal waived any immunity | Tribal immunity bars state-law claims brought in federal court; Ex parte Young does not apply to state-law claims on Indian lands | Officials are immune re: state-law claim because casinos are on Indian lands and collateral Carcieri attack is not permitted here |
| Whether 18 U.S.C. § 1166 provides a federal right of action for states to enjoin unlawful gaming on Indian lands | §1166 incorporates state law and thus allows states to bring federal suits to enjoin unlawful gaming | §1166 contains no express or implied private right of action; Congress provided other enforcement mechanisms and criminal enforcement is federal prerogative | §1166 creates no express or implied right of action for states; Alabama’s IGRA claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Tamiami Partners, Ltd. v. Miccosukee Tribe of Indians, 63 F.3d 1030 (11th Cir. 1995) (context on IGRA and Indian gaming regulation)
- Florida v. Seminole Tribe of Fla., 181 F.3d 1237 (11th Cir. 1999) (analyzing IGRA remedies and limits on implied rights of action)
- Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (1996) (holding detailed remedial scheme can preclude Ex parte Young relief)
- Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Cmty., 134 S. Ct. 2024 (2014) (discussing tribal sovereign immunity and state remedies off Indian lands)
- Kiowa Tribe of Okla. v. Mfg. Techs., Inc., 523 U.S. 751 (1998) (recognizing breadth of tribal sovereign immunity)
- Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908) (state-official-suit exception to sovereign immunity for ongoing federal-law violations)
- Carcieri v. Salazar, 555 U.S. 379 (2009) (construes IRA authority to take lands into trust; basis for collateral-challenge argument)
- Cannon v. Univ. of Chicago, 441 U.S. 677 (1979) (principles on implying private causes of action)
- Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 (2001) (limits on implying private rights of action; rights-creating language requirement)