Common-Law Right <\/strong><\/h2>\nLawyers for the tribe argued that since the state and the tribe are already engaged in litigation, any declaration on the legality of gaming in a separate case would be \u201cparticularly inappropriate.\u201d<\/p>\n
Moreover, even if the tribe were in violation of the Restoration Act, this would not waive its immunity, lawyers said, and the plaintiff\u2019s lawsuit did not demonstrate how it could.<\/p>\n
\u201cTribal immunity is a common-law right of the Tribe that exists independent of the Restoration Act, subject to express modification by Congress or the Tribe itself (which does not exist here),\u201d argued the tribes\u2019 lawyers in a motion to dismiss.<\/p>\n
\u201cNo violation of the Restoration Act could even conceivably give rise to judicial revocation of the Tribe\u2019s centuries-old sovereign authority,\u201d they added.<\/p>\n
The judge agreed that only Congress could repudiate the doctrine of sovereign immunity and not the courts, which meant the case had no standing.<\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"A Houston man who was injured at a tribal bingo hall in East Texas last year argued in a federal lawsuit that the Alabama-Coushatta tribe should be liable for damages because its \u201cillegal gaming\u201d activities undermined its sovereign immunity. But the argument was rejected by the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":36,"featured_media":140388,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[60,18456],"tags":[],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n
Judge Tosses Case Questioning Alabama-Coushatta Sovereign Immunity<\/title>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\n\n\n\n\n\t\n\t\n\t\n