12/4/20
¡ The hypothetical is based on a state court opinion, now depublished. ¡ The state court did not find the Commissioners’ sovereign immunity claims persuasive. ¡ Contrary to the long-settled doctrine of sovereign immunity, the CA state court ruled that sovereign immunity did not apply,
TRIBAL SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY: ISSUES CONSIDERED BY COURTS
and that the Gaming Commissioners exceeded the scope of their powers by revoking the employee’s license without cause.
¡ What went wrong?
9
¡ Classic Case of “Bad Facts Making Bad Law”: ¡ The licensee/plaintiff was a blackjack dealer who, after observing criminal activity on the gaming floor, became a confidential informant for the California Department of Justice. ¡ The Gaming Commissioners scheduled a private meeting with the licensee, but he was never personally notified of the scheduled meeting. After missing the meeting, he was suspended from work. ¡ The Gaming Commissioners notified him of his suspension and their intent to revoke license by letter mailed to his former address. ¡ About a month later, the licensee met with the Gaming Commissioners and was asked to disclose information about his informant activities.The licensee declined to do so. ¡ Shortly after the meeting, the licensee was notified by letter that his license had been revoked. ¡ The licensee sued Gaming Commissioners personally, claiming that the revocation was in retaliation for his informant work.
TRIBAL SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY: ISSUES CONSIDERED BY COURTS
10
5
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs