Opinion ID: 1104877
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: IGRA and the Necessary Business Clause

Text: The Governor argues that his authority to execute the Compact derives from article IV, section 1 of the Florida Constitution. That provision states in part that [t]he governor shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed ... and transact all necessary business with the officers of government. Art. IV, § 1(a), Fla. Const. The Governor submits that the phrase transact all necessary business with the officers of government includes negotiating with the Tribe and that he cannot ignore the federal directive to negotiate; therefore, negotiating the Compact was necessary business under IGRA. IGRA provides that a tribe seeking to offer Class III gaming must request [that] the State ... enter into negotiations for a compact and that the State shall negotiate with the Indian tribe in good faith. 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(3)(A). The Governor is therefore correct that IGRA requires states to negotiate. As other courts have recognized, however, nowhere does IGRA equate the state with the governor. See Seminole Tribe, 517 U.S. at 75 n. 17, 116 S.Ct. 1114 (contrasting IGRA's repeated[] refer[ences] exclusively to `the State' with other federal statutes directed at a state's governor and concluding that the duty imposed by the Act ... is not of the sort likely to be performed by an individual state executive officer or even a group of officers); Seminole Tribe, 11 F.3d at 1029 (IGRA uniformly addresses itself to `the State'; not once does it impose duties or responsibilities on a particular officer of the state (e.g., the governor, the legislature, etc.).). [6] In addition, when a state fails to negotiate, a tribe must sue the state, not the governor. Seminole Tribe, 517 U.S. at 74-75, 116 S.Ct. 1114 (holding that Congress intended § 2710(d)(3) to be enforced against the state, not the governor); Seminole Tribe, 11 F.3d at 1029 ([T]hese suits are not against officials in an attempt to force them to follow federal law.). More importantly, a State's duty to negotiate under IGRA cannot be enforced. A state may avoid its duty, as Florida has effectively done, by asserting its immunity. Seminole Tribe, 517 U.S. at 47, 116 S.Ct. 1114. Therefore, although IGRA requires a state to negotiate, it does not impose any duty on a state's governor. Moreover, IGRA does not prescribe the terms of a compact, see 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d), and it does not confer on the governor the authority to bind the state to a compact or act in contravention to state law. In other words, IGRA does not grant a governor, or any state actor, any powers beyond those provided by the state's constitution and laws. See Clark, 904 P.2d at 26 (We do not agree that Congress, in enacting the IGRA, sought to invest state governors with powers in excess of those that the governors possess under state law.). We express no opinion on whether the necessary business clause may ever grant the governor authority to bind the State to an IGRA compact. [7] We do conclude, however, that the clause does not authorize the governor to execute compacts contrary to the expressed public policy of the state or to create exceptions to the law. Nor does it change our conclusion that the legislature's exclusive power encompasses questions of fundamental policy and the articulation of reasonably definite standards to be used in implementing those policies. B.H., 645 So.2d at 993. We now discuss why, in authorizing conduct prohibited by state law, the Governor exceeded his authority.