Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida
E114954
Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida is a 1996 U.S. Supreme Court case that significantly limited Congress’s power to subject non-consenting states to lawsuits in federal court, reinforcing state sovereign immunity.
All labels observed (2)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida canonical | 7 |
| Seminole Tribe v. Florida | 2 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T969468 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.
Target entity: Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida Context triple: [Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution, keyCase, Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida]
-
A.
Cherokee Nation v. Georgia
Cherokee Nation v. Georgia was an 1831 U.S. Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Cherokee Nation was a "domestic dependent nation" lacking standing to sue as a foreign nation, a ruling that shaped federal Indian law and the context of Indian Removal.
-
B.
Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah
Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah is a 1993 U.S. Supreme Court case that struck down city ordinances targeting Santería animal sacrifice and clarified that laws burdening religious practice must be neutral and generally applicable under the Free Exercise Clause.
-
C.
City of Boerne v. Flores
City of Boerne v. Flores is a 1997 U.S. Supreme Court case that curtailed Congress’s power under the Fourteenth Amendment and held that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act could not be applied to the states.
-
D.
Jackson v. Georgia
Jackson v. Georgia is a United States Supreme Court case that, alongside Furman v. Georgia, addressed the constitutionality and application of the death penalty under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.
-
E.
South Dakota v. Dole
South Dakota v. Dole is a 1987 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld Congress’s power to condition federal highway funds on states adopting a minimum drinking age of 21, helping define the scope of the federal spending power.
- F. None of above. chosen
- G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
Target entity: Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida Target entity description: Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida is a 1996 U.S. Supreme Court case that significantly limited Congress’s power to subject non-consenting states to lawsuits in federal court, reinforcing state sovereign immunity.
-
A.
Cherokee Nation v. Georgia
Cherokee Nation v. Georgia was an 1831 U.S. Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Cherokee Nation was a "domestic dependent nation" lacking standing to sue as a foreign nation, a ruling that shaped federal Indian law and the context of Indian Removal.
-
B.
Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah
Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah is a 1993 U.S. Supreme Court case that struck down city ordinances targeting Santería animal sacrifice and clarified that laws burdening religious practice must be neutral and generally applicable under the Free Exercise Clause.
-
C.
City of Boerne v. Flores
City of Boerne v. Flores is a 1997 U.S. Supreme Court case that curtailed Congress’s power under the Fourteenth Amendment and held that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act could not be applied to the states.
-
D.
Jackson v. Georgia
Jackson v. Georgia is a United States Supreme Court case that, alongside Furman v. Georgia, addressed the constitutionality and application of the death penalty under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.
-
E.
South Dakota v. Dole
South Dakota v. Dole is a 1987 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld Congress’s power to condition federal highway funds on states adopting a minimum drinking age of 21, helping define the scope of the federal spending power.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (50)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
U.S. Supreme Court case
ⓘ
United States constitutional law case ⓘ federal courts case ⓘ |
| areaOfLaw |
constitutional law
ⓘ
federal Indian law ⓘ federal courts ⓘ |
| arguedDate | 1995-10-11 ⓘ |
| chiefJusticeAtDecision | William H. Rehnquist ⓘ |
| citation | 517 U.S. 44 ⓘ |
| constitutionalProvisionInterpreted |
Article I, Section 8, Indian Commerce Clause
ⓘ
Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution ⓘ |
| court | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| decisionDate | 1996-03-27 ⓘ |
| decisionType | 5–4 decision ⓘ |
| dissentingOpinionBy |
David H. Souter
ⓘ
John Paul Stevens ⓘ Ruth Bader Ginsburg ⓘ Stephen G. Breyer ⓘ |
| docketNumber | 94-12 ⓘ |
| fullName | Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida self-link ⓘ |
| holding |
Congress lacks power under Article I to abrogate state sovereign immunity from suits by private parties in federal court
ⓘ
The Eleventh Amendment bars suits in federal court by an Indian tribe against a non-consenting state to enforce IGRA ⓘ The Indian Commerce Clause does not authorize Congress to subject non-consenting states to suits by Indian tribes in federal court ⓘ |
| impact |
restricted enforcement mechanisms available to Indian tribes under IGRA
ⓘ
significantly limited Congress’s ability to authorize private suits against non-consenting states under Article I powers ⓘ strengthened state sovereign immunity doctrine in federal courts ⓘ |
| joinedByInMajority |
Anthony M. Kennedy
ⓘ
Antonin Scalia ⓘ Clarence Thomas ⓘ Sandra Day O’Connor ⓘ |
| jurisdiction | federal question jurisdiction ⓘ |
| legalIssue |
Article I powers of Congress
ⓘ
Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution ⓘ
surface form:
Eleventh Amendment
Indian Commerce Clause ⓘ federal jurisdiction over non-consenting states ⓘ state sovereign immunity ⓘ |
| majorityOpinionBy | William H. Rehnquist ⓘ |
| overruledPrecedent | Pennsylvania v. Union Gas Co. ⓘ |
| page | 44 ⓘ |
| petitioner |
Seminole
ⓘ
surface form:
Seminole Tribe of Florida
|
| precedentStatus | leading case on state sovereign immunity ⓘ |
| relatedDoctrine |
Ex parte Young
ⓘ
surface form:
Ex parte Young doctrine
|
| reporter | United States Reports ⓘ |
| respondent |
Florida
ⓘ
surface form:
State of Florida
|
| shortName |
Seminole
ⓘ
surface form:
Seminole Tribe
|
| statuteInvolved |
28 U.S.C. § 1362
ⓘ
Indian Gaming Regulatory Act ⓘ |
| subsequentCitationFrequency | frequently cited in later sovereign immunity cases ⓘ |
| volume | 517 ⓘ |
| year | 1996 ⓘ |
How these facts were elicited
The pipeline generated the facts above by prompting gpt-5.1 with this entity's name + description and the instruction below.
You are a knowledge base construction expert. Given a subject entity and a description of it, return factual statements that you know for the subject as a JSON list of dictionaries(triples), where keys must be "subject", "predicate" and "object". The number of facts may be very high, between 25 to 50 or more, for very popular subjects. For less popular subjects, the number of facts can be very low, like 5 or 10. # Requirements - If you don't know the subject at all, return an empty list. - If the subject is not a named entity, return an empty list. - Include at least one triple where predicate is "instanceOf". - Do not get too wordy. - Separate several objects into multiple triples with one object.
Subject: Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida Description of subject: Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida is a 1996 U.S. Supreme Court case that significantly limited Congress’s power to subject non-consenting states to lawsuits in federal court, reinforcing state sovereign immunity.
Referenced by (9)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.