Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-06331/USCOURTS-ca10-92-06331-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

PUBLISH 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

PONCA TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

FILED 

I11JUd States Court of Appelt 

Tenth Circuit 

JUL - 8 1996 

PATRICK FISHER 

Clerk 

) No. 92-6331 

v. ) 

) 

STATE OF OKLAHOMA; DAVID WALTERS, ) 

Governor of the State of Oklahoma, individually ) 

and in his official capacity, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Oklahoma 

(D.C. No. CIV -92-988-T) 

Gary S. Pitchlynn, Ted Ritter, and Patrick A. Morse, of Pitchlynn, Morse, Ritter 

& Morse, Norman, OK, submitted on the briefs for Plaintiff-Appellant. 

Neal Leader, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Oklahoma City, OK, submitted 

on the brief for Defendants-Appellees. 

Before ANDERSON, McKAY, and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

EBEL, Circuit Judge. 

Appellate Case: 92-6331 Document: 01019280399 Date Filed: 07/08/1996 Page: 1 
This appeal is before us on remand from the United States Supreme Court. 

Ponca Tribe originally sought an injunction in the District Court for the Western 

District of Oklahoma under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act ("IGRA"), 25 

U.S.C. § 2701 et seq., requiring the state of Oklahoma and Oklahoma's governor 

to negotiate a compact which would permit the tribe to operate a Class III gaming 

facility on the reservation. ~Ponca Tribe of Oklahoma v. State of Okl., 834 F. 

Supp. 1341 (W.D. Okl. 1992). The district court dismissed Ponca Tribe's 

complaint on the ground that it lacked jurisdiction. I d. Specifically, the district 

court held that although Congress intended to abrogate the states' Eleventh 

Amendment immunity to certain suits by Indian tribes by passing the IGRA, 

Congress lacked such power. Id. at 1345-46. We reversed, finding the Supreme 

Court's decision in Pennsylvania v. Union Gas Co., 491 U.S. 1 (1989), 

determinative in the present action. ~ Ponca Tribe of Oklahoma v. State of 

Qkl.., 37 F.3d 1422, 1428-32 (lOth Cir. 1994). Following our decision, the 

Supreme Court decided Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Fla., 116 S. Ct. 1114 (1996), 

in which a majority of the court explicitly overruled Union Gas and dismissed a 

claim for lack of jurisdiction identical to Ponca Tribe's claim against Oklahoma. 

,Sg_ 116 S. Ct. at 1124-32. The Supreme Court also rejected a claim that a tribe 

could invoke Ex parte Youn2 to enforce the IGRA against a state's governor on 

the grounds that Congress, in enacting the IGRA, provided a comprehensive 

-2-

Appellate Case: 92-6331 Document: 01019280399 Date Filed: 07/08/1996 Page: 2 
remedial scheme for the enforcement of federal rights intended to replace the 

otherwise broad remedies available against a defendant. l.d.. at 1132-33. 

Following its decision in Seminole, the Supreme Court granted Ponca Tribe's 

petition for certiorari and summarily vacated our decision and remanded this 

action to us for further consideration. Oklahoma v. Ponca Tribe of Okl., 116 S. 

Ct. 1410 ( 1996). 1 We then requested that both parties file supplemental briefs 

addressing the impact of Seminole. 

Having reviewed the decision in Seminole and the parties' supplemental 

briefs, we conclude that Ponca Tribe lacks jurisdiction against both the state and 

the governor and accordingly we AFFIRM the decision of the district court 

dismissing Ponca Tribe's action for lack of jurisdiction. 2 

1 Our Ponca Tribe opinion consolidated four similar appeals in the Tenth 

Circuit. However, only Ponca Tribe and the Kickapoo Tribe filed petitions for 

certiorari. The Supreme Court dismissed the Kickapoo Tribe's petition on 

November 8, 1995 pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 46.1, which permits dismissal 

when all the parties file an agreement requesting the case be dismissed. See 

Kansas v. Kickapoo Tribe, 116 S. Ct. 435 (1995). 

2 In light of the Supreme Court's Seminole decision, we have been 

required to consider whether the state waived its immunity by negotiating with 

the tribe, an issue raised by Ponca Tribe in its appeal of the district court's 

dismissal. On this issue, we affirm the decision of the district court for 

substantially the same reasons stated by the district court. ~ 834 F. Supp. at 

1344-45. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 92-6331 Document: 01019280399 Date Filed: 07/08/1996 Page: 3