Eleventh Circuit – Page 5

Cert Petition in Seminole Tribe of Florida v. State of Florida Dept. of Revenue

September 30, 2014September 30, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here:

Here is the question presented:

This Court established in Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908), that a plaintiff may sue state officials for prospective injunctive relief against the enforcement of an unconstitutional state law. In the intervening years, this Court and most courts of appeals have repeatedly held that Ex parte Young allows federal courts to enjoin the future enforcement of state tax schemes that violate federal law or the Constitution. This Court has also observed that an injunction requiring a state’s future compliance with federal law does not violate state sovereign immunity, even if it has a “substantial ancillary effect on the state treasury.” Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 278 (1986).

In this case, however, the Eleventh Circuit concluded otherwise. It departed from this Court’s precedent, and “create[d] a circuit split,” Pet. App. 24a (Jordan, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part), when it held that Ex parte Young does not permit the Seminole Tribe of Florida to seek injunctive or declaratory relief against the future unconstitutional enforcement of Florida’s fuel tax scheme. The court’s holding turned on the fact that Florida precollects this tax from a third party, which means that an order barring future enforcement against the tribes might require the state to issue tribal consumers refunds “from state coffers,” supposedly in violation of the Eleventh Amendment. Pet. App. 12a.

The question presented is whether sovereign immunity bars an American Indian tribe from seeking Ex parte Young relief from the unconstitutional enforcement of a state tax scheme merely because that relief might require refunds for taxes unlawfully collected in the future.

Lower court materials and my commentary here.

Eleventh Circuit Briefs in Alabama v. PCI Gaming

September 15, 2014October 8, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here:

Alabama Opening Brief

State of Michigan et al. Amicus Brief

Lower court materials here.

Eleventh Circuit Rules in Favor of Seminole Tribe in Title VII Matter

August 21, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the unpublished opinion in Mastro v. Seminole Tribe:

Mastro v Seminole

Briefs here.

Opening Eleventh Circuit Briefs in Alabama v. PCI Gaming

July 16, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Alabama Opening Brief

State of Michigan et al. Amicus Brief

Lower court materials here.

Eleventh Circuit Briefs in Mastro v. Seminole Tribe (Title VII Matter)

May 13, 2014May 28, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here:

Mastro Brief

Seminole Tribe Brief

Mastro Reply Brief

Seminole Tribe Complaint Dismissed by 11th Circuit in Revenue Case

May 6, 2014May 6, 2014Kate Fort3 Comments

Decision here.

Briefs here.

Lower court briefs and decision here.

For various reasons, this might be a good case for en banc review by the 11th Circuit. First, one of the three judges deciding this was from the D.C. district court, sitting by designation. Second, the decision is based on an issue not briefed (which leads to a broader research question we have about federal Indian law generally–how often this happens). Third, and perhaps most importantly, the Court’s analysis of Ex Parte Young an issue of broader, national, concern.

The Court’s issues with equitable relief, and characterizing the relief should the Tribe win as a continued “damages” against the state because of the state’s collection regime is strange.

A declaratory judgment exempting the Tribe from the tax is the functional equivalent of ordering recurring payments of money damages. The Tribe points to no other way around the alleged constitutional violation other than a recurring refund paid to the Tribe from the Department after it precollects the tax from the fuel suppliers.

***

Unlike the tax regimes in those appeals, the only relief available to the Tribe under Florida law is a refund of taxes it will already have paid, and state sovereign immunity bars that relief. See Ford Motor Co., 323 U.S. at 463–64, 65 S. Ct. at 350.

As Judge Jordan in the dissent writes:

The majority’s opinion, as I read it, apparently would allow a state to shield the enforcement of any tax, no matter how constitutionally untenable, from challenge in federal court simply by enacting a precollection procedure.