This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The Plaintiff, a former executive director of the Pueblo of San Juan Gaming Commission, alleged that his gaming license was revoked in retaliation for disciplining certain employees. He claimed the Gaming Commission failed to provide adequate notice of accusations and denied him a fair hearing before an impartial tribunal. The Plaintiff sought damages for loss of livelihood, physical and mental distress, and relocation costs (paras 2-4).
Procedural History
- San Juan Tribal Court: Affirmed the Gaming Commission's decision to revoke the Plaintiff's gaming license (para 3).
Parties' Submissions
- Plaintiff: Argued that the revocation of his gaming license violated procedural fairness and that the Tribe waived its sovereign immunity under Section 8 of the Indian Gaming Compact, which provides for remedies in cases of bodily injury or property damage caused by the Gaming Enterprise (paras 2, 8).
- Defendants: Asserted tribal sovereign immunity, arguing that the Plaintiff's claims did not fall within the limited waiver of immunity under Section 8 of the compact, as the alleged harm was not caused by the Gaming Enterprise but by the Gaming Commission (paras 4, 10-12).
Legal Issues
- Whether the Tribe and its Gaming Commission are immune from suit under the doctrine of tribal sovereign immunity.
- Whether the waiver of sovereign immunity in Section 8 of the Indian Gaming Compact applies to the Plaintiff's claims (paras 1, 7-8).
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's dismissal of the Plaintiff's complaint, holding that the Tribe and its Gaming Commission are immune from suit and that the Plaintiff failed to establish a valid waiver of sovereign immunity (paras 1, 13).
Reasons
Per Alarid J. (Bustamante CJ. and Castillo J. concurring):
The Court held that tribal sovereign immunity protects the Tribe and its agencies, including the Gaming Commission, from suit unless there is a clear waiver of immunity or congressional abrogation (para 7). Section 8 of the Indian Gaming Compact provides a limited waiver of immunity for claims involving bodily injury or property damage caused by the conduct of the Gaming Enterprise. However, the Plaintiff's claims arose from the actions of the Gaming Commission, a regulatory body distinct from the Gaming Enterprise, and not from the conduct of the Gaming Enterprise itself (paras 10-12).
The Court rejected the Plaintiff's argument that his gaming license constituted "property damage" under Section 8, emphasizing that the waiver of immunity must be unequivocally expressed and narrowly construed. The Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that his claims fell within the scope of the compact's waiver of immunity (paras 10-12). Consequently, the Court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the complaint (para 13).