100 N.Y.2d 801 (2003)

The governor’s unilateral negotiation and execution of tribal-state gaming compacts, without legislative authorization or approval, violates the separation of powers doctrine under the New York State Constitution, as it encroaches upon the legislature’s policymaking authority.

Summary

This case addresses the constitutional authority of the Governor of New York to enter into agreements with Indian tribes allowing casino gaming on tribal lands. Plaintiffs, including legislators and organizations opposed to casino gambling, challenged the Governor’s actions as a violation of the separation of powers. The Court of Appeals held that the Governor’s unilateral actions in negotiating and signing the 1993 compact with the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe, allowing casino gaming on the Akwesasne Reservation, were unconstitutional because they constituted policymaking, a power reserved for the Legislature. The court emphasized that issues such as licensing, taxation, and criminal jurisdiction within the compact required legislative input and approval.

Facts

In 1993, Governor Mario Cuomo entered into a Tribal-State Compact with the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe, permitting casino gaming on the Akwesasne Reservation. This agreement stemmed from the Federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA). Later, Governor George Pataki executed an amendment to the compact in 1999, allowing electronic gaming. Plaintiffs subsequently filed suit, contending that these actions violated the separation of powers enshrined in the New York State Constitution.

Procedural History

The Supreme Court initially dismissed the case for failure to join the Tribe as an indispensable party. The Appellate Division reversed, finding the Tribe was not an indispensable party. On remand, the Supreme Court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs, declaring the compact and amendment void. The Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals reviewed the case due to the substantial constitutional question presented.

Issue(s)

Whether the Governor’s negotiation and execution of the Tribal-State Compact, without legislative authorization, violated the separation of powers doctrine under the New York Constitution?

Holding

Yes, because the negotiation and execution of the Tribal-State Compact by the Governor without legislative approval constitutes policymaking, which is a legislative function, thereby violating the separation of powers doctrine.

Court’s Reasoning

The court reasoned that the IGRA does not preempt state law regarding which state actors can negotiate gaming compacts, leaving this determination to state law. The court emphasized the significant policy choices inherent in gaming compacts, including licensing, taxation, and the allocation of criminal and civil jurisdiction. These are traditionally legislative functions involving a balancing of competing interests. The court stated that, “Compacts addressing these issues necessarily make fundamental policy choices that epitomize ‘legislative power.’” The court also noted that the compacts require the State Racing and Wagering Board to adopt new regulations, a task that can only be assigned by the Legislature. Furthermore, the court dismissed the argument that legislative appropriations signaled approval of the compact, stating these are not substitutes for formal ratification. Quoting from the opinion, “It thus falls to the courts, and ultimately to this Court, to determine whether a challenged gubernatorial action is ‘legislative’ and therefore ultra vires. In this case we have no difficulty determining that the Governor’s actions were policymaking, and thus legislative in character.” The court also addressed arguments of mootness, standing, statute of limitations, and laches, finding none of these barred the action. The court noted that if standing were denied, “an important constitutional issue would be effectively insulated from judicial review.” Finally, the court also found that the Tribe was not an indispensable party. Dissenting opinions argued that the compact was consistent with the State Constitution and laws, highlighting that the legislature supported the compact, and that the Tribe was an indispensable party. However, the majority held that the compact violated the separation of powers and was therefore unconstitutional.