E.F.W. v. St. Stephen’s Indian High Sch., 264 F.3d 1297, 1304 (10th Cir.2001). As sovereign powers, federally-recognized Indian tribes possess immunity from suit in federal court. Berrey v. Asarco Inc., 439 F.3d 636, 643 (10th Cir.2006); see also 25 C.F.R. § 83.2 (describing effect of federal recognition for tribes). Tribal immunity extends to subdivisions of a tribe, and even bars suits arising from a tribe’s commercial activities. See Kiowa Tribe of Okla. v. Mfg. Techs., Inc., 523 U.S. 751, 759, 118 S.Ct. 1700, 140 L.Ed.2d 981 (1998) (“Tribes enjoy immunity from suits on contracts, whether those contracts involve governmental or commercial activities and whether they were made on or off a reservation.”); see also Allen v. Gold Country Casino, 464 F.3d 1044, 1047 (9th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied., — U.S. —, 127 S.Ct. 1307, 167
holding that an inn which was a subentity of the tribe rather than a separate corporate entity enjoyed tribal immunity holding that a casino that functioned as an arm of the tribe enjoyed tribal immunity holding that offreservation casino owned and operated by tribe was arm of the tribe and therefore was entitled to sovereign immunity recognizing sovereign immunity of forprofit corporation formed by a tribe to operate the tribes casino holding that the tribes housing authority was exempt from the adea a general statute because the tribal entity was not just a business but also functioned as an arm of tribal government by providing housing to tribe members